Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[dybmh]

Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda.

Not true. I already gave you the link to the replies which addressed this. If you refuse to read it, then that is your own willful ignorance. The link I provided gives all the arguments for and against. You didn't read the conclusion. And you don't seem to have enough any knowledge of the language, so you won't be able to understand the reason for the conclusion.

Post#542 -> link

While we currently lack information to clarify the precise meaning of asherah in the inscriptions, the identification of the term as a common noun has important religio-historical implications and may point us toward a possible answer. We have already seen above that because asherah in the inscriptions is declined with a pronominal suffix, it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. This asherah is by definition distinguished from all other asherahs, including perhaps especially the goddess whose proper name was Asherah.​

​

From the conclusion: A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah​

But, it's not just in the conclusion, it's throughout the entire source:

​

the interpretation of ʾšrt as a reference to the goddess Asherah can account for evidence that the inscription has in view a female deity paired with YHWH as an object of blessing but at the same time is unable to decisively explain the significance of the attached pronominal suffix, while the interpretation of ʾšrt as a cult object/shrine belonging to YHWH resolves the pronominal suffix and yet downplays evidence that the blessing is directed toward a deity.​

​

This line of thinking takes its point of departure from the fact that the h- on ʾšrth is most easily analyzed as a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent and therefore as a declined substantive ʾšrt must represent a common noun rather than a proper name. According to the syntactic context, ʾšrt cannot refer to the goddess Asherah, but must signify something else.​

​

in the final analysis the theoretical argument that a proper name such as Asherah could carry a pronominal suffix is beset by a number of problems. First, although from a materialist perspective deities in the ancient Near East typically had properties of both common and proper nouns, they were nevertheless treated in practice as quasi-distinct persons, i.e. unitary entities. For example, within the immediate context of worship at local cult centers such as Samaria, Teman, and Jerusalem YHWH was not regarded primarily as a member of a class of deities but as the YHWH relevant to the worshipping community. Consequently, we would not expect the discourse surrounding divine names to completely upend conventional norms of the spoken language for distinguishing common vs. proper nouns (cf. Wiggins 1993: 188; Tropper 2001: 100; Smith 2002: 119-20; Irsigler 2011: 142-43). As a matter of linguistic function, the lexeme asherah cannot simultaneously inhabit both determined and indeterminate categories. If ʾšrth is correctly interpreted as the substantive asherah with an attached pronominal suffix it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. By definition the suffix distinguishes this asherah from every other asherah: this asherah is YHWH’s asherah.​

And regarding a religious agenda, do you still identify as Baha'i? Clicks on profile... Yup, sure do. So you have an agenda too. My agenda is simply to shut down these rumors in defense of my religion, and there's nothing wrong with challenging false information with fact.

I believe the referebces were sufficient to document that the Ugarit/Canaanite and earlier sumerian texts are sources for the compilation of Genesis, Exodus and other books of the OT.

There wasn't a single thing in anything you posted that refers to Genesis nor Exodus. Your "belief" is false. And since there were at least 3 completely false assertions made mixed with a large volume of irrelevant similarities between the cultures ( example: they both weep for the dead ) there is no reason to trust any of what you are posting until you acknowledge what you posted was false.

Your vain attempts of distortion are dishonest, There were more references than just the 'church' reference.

Not that I saw. All of it appears to be copy-paste from a church website. And when you posted it you didn't give a link to the source. You claimed it was academic, but cannot or will not provide the author or their credentials.

You even hypothetically distorted your own reference double down on the distortion above and NO you did not accurately respond to posts #538 and 539.

Not true. You simply have not actually researched the inscriptions, and you don't seem to have enough knowledge on the subject to understand the reason why it cannot be Asherah in those inscriptions. I'll explain it again.

The claim is: the inscription says "YHWH and His Asherah". But when the inscription is analyzed the letters for the word that are supposed to be Asherah spell "?srth". This does not spell Asherah. The question mark at the beginning is not actually a problem, nor is the lack of any vowels. It is the last two letters, the suffix, "th". There is a way in biblical hebrew to express the possessive "his" or "hers" of a noun by transforming the noun using a suffix. IF this is what happened THEN maybe it's an asherah. But it cannot be THE Asherah.

Transforming the noun = pronominal. That is where the term "pronomial suffix" comes from. That's what it means. It means that a noun is being transformed with a suffix. Examples: The "Torah of Moses" = "Torat-Moshe". The H is replaced with a T showing that the Torah belongs to Moses. The Blessing (B'rachah ) of the Priests (Cohanim) = "Birkat-Cohamin". The H is replaced with a T showing that the blessing belongs to the priests.

All of this is detailed below:

Construct state - Wikipedia

If you read it, you'll see that this transformation NEVER occurs with a name. Never. Why? Because if the name is transformed then it's no longer clear who is being written about.

Let's take your name: Frank, and pretend that I want to say, Frank of RF, RF's Frank. Notice. Your name did not change. It's always Frank. If I start to transform it in the way that is listed above with a pronominal suffix, then Frank becomes Frant. And Frank of RF becomes Frant-RF. Are you starting to see the problem? "Frant" could be referring to Frank or Frany or Frano or Franu or any other name ending with any other letter. A proper noun cannot be transformed this way.

archaeological evidence documents polytheism among Hebrews beyond any reasonable doubt.

So far you have not brought any evidence of this just a claim. But even if it's true it has no connection to the Hebrew myths.

The Hebrews of th eHills of Judah were a polytheistic pastora; tribe in th eHills of Judah and only embraced Monotheism after the return from exile.

Even if you're right, that only shows that this is when monotheism became popular. The Temple Tel Arad and others show that monotheism existed and had a substantial following before the exile. The Temple is dated approx. 1000BCE. The archelogical evidence matches what is described in The Hebrew Bible, and instituions like this do not magically poof into existence. It takes many people and time to setup and support a monotheistic temple of this size.

There's also the Ketef Hinnom. It matches the Hebrew bible. It didn't magically poof into existence. There needs to be a story, a language, scribal schools, artisans, and a demand for production of these sorts of items. That pushes the date of monothiestic Judaism back long before the return of exile.

 

[Muffled]

All the other gods are mythical. A good argument but the reality of God trumps it.

 

[Muffled]

If you had to choose one, and only one, argument against the God of Abraham as described in the Bible ( both Hebrew and Christian ), what would it be?

Please vote in the poll. I tried to cover all the major objections, and I'm interested to know if I missed anything.

My vote? God doesn't listen. I think that's the single best argument against God.

• No evidence? It's not really an argument against.
• Harsh / evil actions in the bible? The NT and Christian theology explains most of that stuff.
• The bible is unrealistic / fake? It doesn't bother me.
• Suffering / Starvation / Disease / Pests / Pestilence? It's a really good argument, my 2nd choice.
• No intervention against tyrants and the worst of the worst criminals. This is my 3rd choice.

Thank you in advance for your response.

...God never listens ... to what I say... and you don't get a refund ... if you over-pray...

Spoiler: lyrics

Swinging on the lifeline
Fraying bits of twine
Entangled in the remnants of the
Knot I left behind
And asking you to help me make it
Finally unwind

But God never listens to what I say
God never listens to what I say
And you don't get a refund
If you overpray

And when the line is breaking
And when I'm near the end
When all the time spent leading
I've been following instead
When all my thoughts and memories are
Left hanging by a thread

God never listens...

Stranded on this slender string
The minutes seem to last a lifetime
Dangling here between the light above
And blue below that drags me down

But God never listens to what I say
God never listens to what I say
And you don't get a refund
If you overpray

I believe that is false; God does listen.

 

[Muffled]

Other. That I don't have to believe in a theistic God to have a life as such.

I believe it doesn't matter what life you have, that will not change God's existence.

 

[Muffled]

All of them, but I picked "no evidence."

I believe I am evidence of God.

 

[dybmh]

Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda.

When are you going to answer any of these questions? Or perhaps have the integrity to admit that what you posted was false and irrelevant.

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

 

[shunyadragon]

Not true. I already gave you the link to the replies which addressed this. If you refuse to read it, then that is your own willful ignorance. The link I provided gives all the arguments for and against. You didn't read the conclusion. And you don't seem to have enough any knowledge of the language, so you won't be able to understand the reason for the conclusion.

Post#542 -> link

While we currently lack information to clarify the precise meaning of asherah in the inscriptions, the identification of the term as a common noun has important religio-historical implications and may point us toward a possible answer. We have already seen above that because asherah in the inscriptions is declined with a pronominal suffix, it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. This asherah is by definition distinguished from all other asherahs, including perhaps especially the goddess whose proper name was Asherah.​

​

From the conclusion: A New Analysis of YHWH’s asherah​

But, it's not just in the conclusion, it's throughout the entire source:

​

the interpretation of ʾšrt as a reference to the goddess Asherah can account for evidence that the inscription has in view a female deity paired with YHWH as an object of blessing but at the same time is unable to decisively explain the significance of the attached pronominal suffix, while the interpretation of ʾšrt as a cult object/shrine belonging to YHWH resolves the pronominal suffix and yet downplays evidence that the blessing is directed toward a deity.​

​

This line of thinking takes its point of departure from the fact that the h- on ʾšrth is most easily analyzed as a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent and therefore as a declined substantive ʾšrt must represent a common noun rather than a proper name. According to the syntactic context, ʾšrt cannot refer to the goddess Asherah, but must signify something else.​

​

in the final analysis the theoretical argument that a proper name such as Asherah could carry a pronominal suffix is beset by a number of problems. First, although from a materialist perspective deities in the ancient Near East typically had properties of both common and proper nouns, they were nevertheless treated in practice as quasi-distinct persons, i.e. unitary entities. For example, within the immediate context of worship at local cult centers such as Samaria, Teman, and Jerusalem YHWH was not regarded primarily as a member of a class of deities but as the YHWH relevant to the worshipping community. Consequently, we would not expect the discourse surrounding divine names to completely upend conventional norms of the spoken language for distinguishing common vs. proper nouns (cf. Wiggins 1993: 188; Tropper 2001: 100; Smith 2002: 119-20; Irsigler 2011: 142-43). As a matter of linguistic function, the lexeme asherah cannot simultaneously inhabit both determined and indeterminate categories. If ʾšrth is correctly interpreted as the substantive asherah with an attached pronominal suffix it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. By definition the suffix distinguishes this asherah from every other asherah: this asherah is YHWH’s asherah.​

And regarding a religious agenda, do you still identify as Baha'i? Clicks on profile... Yup, sure do. So you have an agenda too. My agenda is simply to shut down these rumors in defense of my religion, and there's nothing wrong with challenging false information with fact.



There wasn't a single thing in anything you posted that refers to Genesis nor Exodus. Your "belief" is false. And since there were at least 3 completely false assertions made mixed with a large volume of irrelevant similarities between the cultures ( example: they both weep for the dead ) there is no reason to trust any of what you are posting until you acknowledge what you posted was false.



Not that I saw. All of it appears to be copy-paste from a church website. And when you posted it you didn't give a link to the source. You claimed it was academic, but cannot or will not provide the author or their credentials.



Not true. You simply have not actually researched the inscriptions, and you don't seem to have enough knowledge on the subject to understand the reason why it cannot be Asherah in those inscriptions. I'll explain it again.

The claim is: the inscription says "YHWH and His Asherah". But when the inscription is analyzed the letters for the word that are supposed to be Asherah spell "?srth". This does not spell Asherah. The question mark at the beginning is not actually a problem, nor is the lack of any vowels. It is the last two letters, the suffix, "th". There is a way in biblical hebrew to express the possessive "his" or "hers" of a noun by transforming the noun using a suffix. IF this is what happened THEN maybe it's an asherah. But it cannot be THE Asherah.

Transforming the noun = pronominal. That is where the term "pronomial suffix" comes from. That's what it means. It means that a noun is being transformed with a suffix. Examples: The "Torah of Moses" = "Torat-Moshe". The H is replaced with a T showing that the Torah belongs to Moses. The Blessing (B'rachah ) of the Priests (Cohanim) = "Birkat-Cohamin". The H is replaced with a T showing that the blessing belongs to the priests.

All of this is detailed below:

Construct state - Wikipedia

If you read it, you'll see that this transformation NEVER occurs with a name. Never. Why? Because if the name is transformed then it's no longer clear who is being written about.

Let's take your name: Frank, and pretend that I want to say, Frank of RF, RF's Frank. Notice. Your name did not change. It's always Frank. If I start to transform it in the way that is listed above with a pronominal suffix, then Frank becomes Frant. And Frank of RF becomes Frant-RF. Are you starting to see the problem? "Frant" could be referring to Frank or Frany or Frano or Franu or any other name ending with any other letter. A proper noun cannot be transformed this way.



So far you have not brought any evidence of this just a claim. But even if it's true it has no connection to the Hebrew myths.



Even if you're right, that only shows that this is when monotheism became popular. The Temple Tel Arad and others show that monotheism existed and had a substantial following before the exile. The Temple is dated approx. 1000BCE. The archelogical evidence matches what is described in The Hebrew Bible, and instituions like this do not magically poof into existence. It takes many people and time to setup and support a monotheistic temple of this size.

There's also the Ketef Hinnom. It matches the Hebrew bible. It didn't magically poof into existence. There needs to be a story, a language, scribal schools, artisans, and a demand for production of these sorts of items. That pushes the date of monothiestic Judaism back long before the return of exile.

Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda.

 

[Kenny]

Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda.

Or... any reason is a good reason not to believe. and thus

When are you going to answer any of these questions? Or perhaps have the integrity to admit that what you posted was false and irrelevant.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I believe I am evidence of God.

Jesus, is that you?

 

[dybmh]

Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda.

I don't need to bring anything new if you do not / cannot refute anything I already posted. I did not misrepresent anything. The research in my source develops the conclusion that it cannot be Asherah. This stated explicitly in the section at the bottom called "Conclusion".

Then I brought further, actual academic, sources to show that the inscription is not a reliable metric for mainstream Judaism at that time.

When are YOU going to address the multiple problems in what you've posted? You mispresented Psalm 89. You misrepreseted Daniel. You misrepresetned Azazel along with a host of other things. You mispresented your source, claiming it's academic when it is religious.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

"Frant" could be referring to Frank or Frany or Frano or Franu or any other name ending with any other letter.

Frank, Franky, Francis, Franklin... Then you start getting into nicknames.

El Elyon, Adonai, God, YHWH, Elohim, El, El Shaddai, Yahweh, El Eloha, Allah... all referring to the God of Abraham.

 

[dybmh]

Frank, Franky, Francis, Franklin... Then you start getting into nicknames.

El Elyon, Adonai, God, YHWH, Elohim, El, El Shaddai, Yahweh, El Eloha, Allah... all referring to the God of Abraham.

Do you understand the grammatical problem with transforming a proper name in order to express the possessive? Possession cannot be accurately expressed if the name is transformed. It defeats the purpose.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Do you understand the grammatical problem with transforming a proper name in order to express the possessive? Possession cannot be accurately expressed if the name is transformed. It defeats the purpose.

In English, yes. I am monolingual.
I am unaware how it would/could work or not in other languages, or dialects even.

 

[dybmh]

In English, yes. I am monolingual.
I am unaware how it would/could work or not in other languages, or dialects even.

The fact remains there are no examples of this sort of grammatic transformation of a proper name in biblical Hebrew or any other language that I am aware of. And I've brought sources to support this fact. It's not just me saying it. Logically it makes sense why this is not how a language would express possession. Can you imagine any legal document written this way? Judaism is a legal religion.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The fact remains there are no examples of this sort of grammatic transformation of a proper name in biblical Hebrew or any other language that I am aware of. And I've brought sources to support this fact. It's not just me saying it. Logically it makes sense why this is not how a language would express possession. Can you imagine any legal document written this way? Judaism is a legal religion.

Don't the semitic languages root themselves in pictographs?

I could see a more 'interpretation required' approach for such a script; If they lack a symbol representing possession, for example.

Edit: I have no clue how hieroglyphs or pictographs exactly work. The pharaohs put their cartouches on what they claimed as theirs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As many Christians are ex-atheists. I know you are jumping in without knowledge of what was said previously.

I didn't say "all" so it would be true that in some cases as you shared -- they have thought through and came to that conclusion based on their experiences and thoughts.

But your statement of "prejudice", IMV, is a prejudice in and of itself.

And that is just projection.

What is "evil" for humanity seems to be fluid. Not sure why you are bringing in "gay" at this point. Are you homophobic or are you trying to insert a strawman argument? Or is this another example of "any reason is a good reason to not believe in a God"?

So backwards. Did you read my post? You clearly did not understand it. But you did get one thing right. The human race continually learns from its mistakes. We are also continually wealthier. Both of those facts allow our morals to improve.

 

[dybmh]

Don't the semitic languages root themselves in pictographs?

Yes, and no. I think the sounds came first.

I could see a more 'interpretation required' approach for such a script; If they lack a symbol representing possession, for example.

Oh! They had a symbol for that! They had multiple symbols for that. The problem is people aren't really described as possessions in the Hebrew bible contrary to popular belief.

One way they could do it is with the lamed, it's a "hook" that connects up. It comes at the beginning of a word, and does not transform it. Then there's also the "Tav". That's more like a staple, tethering it to the earth. There's also a more generic "hook", the vav, which is combined with 2 dots on opposing sides showing a relationship, that's the letter aleph. This relationship(aleph)+staple(tav) is how possession is described for something God literally possesses. Like the voice of God in Gen 3.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe it doesn't matter what life you have, that will not change God's existence.

Well, if there is a God, it doesn't follow that God is, what you say, God is. That is still 2 different cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe I am evidence of God.

Yeah, but to the rest of us, it just means you believe that. And it still doesn't explain what God is.

 

[Kenny]

And that is just projection.

So backwards. Did you read my post? You clearly did not understand it. But you did get one thing right. The human race continually learns from its mistakes. We are also continually wealthier. Both of those facts allow our morals to improve.

Ok.. obviously you weren't interested in dialogue.