Yahweh before the bible

Hivemind187

As an aside from the current row over Yahweh's change of approach I was thinking about something else.

The Bible works out to cover a period of roughly 4000bc to about 150AD right?

Now leaving aside the creationist, young earth, noah's ark had two of every animal stuff aside and focussing on the salient fact that man has existed for roughly 250,000 years and has developed many different gods/religions/superstitions etc How does a Chrisitian cope with the apparent absense of Yahweh prior to 4000bc?

Where was Yahweh? Was he a god by another name? If he does exist, and the facts are also true about the length of time man has been walking the earth then how does one reconcile the time differences?

Further, if he invented the world, why didnt he reveal himself to man in the 244,000 (several billion total age of the earth) years intervening?

... seems like an awful long snooze doesnt it?

philologos

Do you not realise that God has not revealed everything about his nature or his past in the Bible. Prophets have even claimed that they can never fully understand the Lord, He told Moses that he had not revealed everything to him. So how do you expect us to tell you of God's origins.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

Do you not realise that God has not revealed everything about his nature or his past in the Bible. Prophets have even claimed that they can never fully understand the Lord, He told Moses that he had not revealed everything to him. So how do you expect us to tell you of God's origins.

Sounds like a cop out of the highest order.

And it still doesnt explain what he was doing during the quarter of a million years preceeding.

Galvasean

I'm no expert on the subject (who is?) but I can only assume existence was very boring before the invention of the universe.

Hivemind187

Galvasean wrote:

I'm no expert on the subject (who is?) but I can only assume existence was very boring before the invention of the universe.

um .... what has that got to do with this?

Unless of course you mean that there was no universe prior to 6000 years ago, which I have asked peple to put aside because I cant argue with blind creationist belief.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

Sounds like a cop out of the highest order.

And it still doesnt explain what he was doing during the quarter of a million years preceeding.

Tough. I get what I know of God through what is written. It's the best answer you're going to get on this topic tbh with you. Do you not realise the world was created before the Torah was written. Thats an important factor to take into account. Yahweh was doing a lot of what was written before it was put down on paper in Hebrew.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

Tough. I get what I know of God through what is written. It's the best answer you're going to get on this topic tbh with you.

Well thanks for your answer Jackass, now maybe someone more inclined to give it some thought would care to comment?

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

Well thanks for your answer Jackass, now maybe someone more inclined to give it some thought would care to comment?

I don't need to be insulted when I'm giving an answer to your question. Your arrogance isn't a favourable quality by the way.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

I don't need to be insulted when I'm giving an answer to your question. Your arrogance isn't a favourable quality by the way.

I'm not getting into personal slagging. You got arrogant with me by stating "tough, I'm going to give answers based on the bible" [SIC] and I responded in kind.

philologos

Do you not understand that when you are discussing Christianity, the Bible is going to come up? That is the point, infact you can't discuss about Christianity at all without referring to it.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

Do you not understand that when you are discussing Christianity, the Bible is going to come up? That is the point, infact you can't discuss about Christianity at all without referring to it.

You didnt even read the original question.

What the hell was he doing in the quarter of a million years preceeding his appearance in the Bible?

What does this say about Christianity (considering that before this point we have no record of Yahweh and many other gods had come and gone in this period)?

The bible, in the context of the question, is a point of reference and nothing more. Saying that he does not reveal himself fully in the Bible is unrelated to the origianl question of what was he doing and how do you reconcile him creating reality then bogging off for 244,000 years?

I dont mind if the Bible has an answer because I am trying to understand how it is reconciled - point out to me where it is explained or what you take as an explanation?

philologos

Thats the point! We don't know as it hasn't been revealed to us. We can speculate as much as we want but we don't know. With the 244,000 years, you are refusing to understand that people believe otherwise as well.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

Thats the point! We don't know as it hasn't been revealed to us. We can speculate as much as we want but we don't know. With the 244,000 years, you are refusing to understand that people believe otherwise as well.

And the idea that god was happy to let people believe in any deity they wished prior to his sudden appearance and subsequent claims of having created the world is not in any way dodgy to you?

You are actually proud to be ignorant of what happened?

What am I refusing to understand about others and the 244,000 years? That they believe the world was created in 6 days? That the earth is only 6,000 years old? I understand it, I dont believe a word of it, and I am trying to comprehend how you can believe it.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote:

What am I refusing to understand about others and the 244,000 years? That they believe the world was created in 6 days? That the earth is only 6,000 years old? I understand it, I dont believe a word of it, and I am trying to comprehend how you can believe it.

the 244,000 years is disputed. That's what I'm saying. You don't believe a word about God as well, so whats the point in discussing this? It hasn't been revealed to us, and I don't think I should make up something for your satisfaction.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

the 244,000 years is disputed. That's what I'm saying. You don't believe a word about God as well, so whats the point in discussing this? It hasn't been revealed to us, and I don't think I should make up something for your satisfaction.

The 244,000 years is disputed. If you read my original post I have asked that the creationist nonsense of an earth 6000 years old be put aside due to the nature of the question itself.

Jakkass, with all due respect, this discussion is not an attack against you or christians in general, it is an attempt to understand somethign fundamental. If you arent capable of addressing the question as it is presented then just say so and stop posting.

As for believing in God. you're right, I dont believe in Yahweh or any other deity, my concern is with the system of beliefs and how the two things are reconciled. I was hoping for a rational or consdered approach and saying "It wasnt revealed to us" is not an answer. "I dunno" is a fine answer because it admits a lack of comprehension but it does not preclude the opportunity to find out "It hasnt been revealed to us" suggests you are waiting for someone elese (Yahweh presumably) to do the work for you.

Finally, are you honestly suggesting that there were no people in existance before 6000bc?

Sapien

Hivemind187 wrote:

Where was Yahweh? Was he a god by another name?

Yahweh was part of a confused and evolving henotheism that spanned the Levant from two millenia BCE. He competed for the worship of nomadic tribes with El and Baal, exchanged names and territories and settlements, overthrew and undermined. It is probable that most of the ancestors of the biblical Jews worshipped a loose pantheon with the god El and his wife Ashera at its head. At some point Yahweh took over as head-god, and husband to Ashera, but continued to be worshipped in conjunction with El and Baal. Eventually YHVH absorbed all the godly functions of the rest of his tribal competitors. By the end of the Babylonian captivity, a firm monotheism had set in.

Sapien

double post

Hivemind187

Sapien wrote:

Yahweh was part of a confused and evolving henotheism that spanned the Levant from two millenia BCE. He competed for the worship of nomadic tribes with El and Baal, exchanged names and territories and settlements, overthrew and undermined. It is probable that most of the ancestors of the biblical Jews worshipped a loose pantheon with the god El and his wife Ashera at its head. At some point Yahweh took over as head-god, and husband to Ashera, but continued to be worshipped in conjunction with El and Baal. Eventually YHVH absorbed all the godly functions of the rest of his tribal competitors. By the end of the Babylonian captivity, a firm monotheism had set in.

So for all intents and purposes he was a lower god than he wound up. nice promotion if you can get it.

So where does that leave Christianity (Or Judaism for that matter)? To my mind that suggests that Yahweh is a usurper of the position held by older gods.

What does this do to his claim of creating the world? Did he nick the idea from the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I'm interested to hear how this is reconciled to faith?

Sapien

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm interested to hear how this is reconciled to faith?

It isn't. It's ignored by the reasonable religious, denied by the unreasonable.

philologos

Sapien wrote:

At some point Yahweh took over as head-god, and husband to Ashera, but continued to be worshipped in conjunction with El and Baal.

If you take into account the Biblical narrative, it says that there was a period where people worshipped to Baal and YHWH but it says that He wasn't pleased with it. I think it's in 2nd Kings or Chronicles, can't remember exactly.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

If you take into account the Biblical narrative, it says that there was a period where people worshipped to Baal and YHWH but it says that He wasn't pleased with it. I think it's in 2nd Kings or Chronicles, can't remember exactly.

Jakkass does this mean that you believe in other gods?

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

If you take into account the Biblical narrative, it says that there was a period where people worshipped to Baal and YHWH but it says that He wasn't pleased with it. I think it's in 2nd Kings or Chronicles, can't remember exactly.

Yes, but what most Christians fail to understand is that Baal was not believed to be a mere idol, but an actual, living god. And he was not the only one believed in by the ancestors of the Jews, aside from Yahweh. Yahweh was one of a number of tribal gods whose tribe happened to leave the most lasting historical impression and impactful religious legacy. Henotheism means worshipping one god while believing that it is one of many. The Mosaic Covenant is an agreement between the Jews and Yahweh - a contract, if you will, pledging exclusive worship in exchange for special service.

The incident with Baal at the foothills of Sinai is one of a few traces that remain in the Bible of the much more complicated, chaotic religion of the Jews from which its present monotheism arose. It makes very little sense if one attempts to understand it in the context of modern Judaeo-Christian theology.

Tim Robbins

Sapien wrote:

Yes, but what most Christians fail to understand is that Baal was not believed to be a mere idol, but an actual, living god. And he was not the only one believed in by the ancestors of the Jews, aside from Yahweh. Yahweh was one of a number of tribal gods whose tribe happened to leave the most lasting historical impression and impactful religious legacy. Henotheism means worshipping one god while believing that it is one of many. The Mosaic Covenant is an agreement between the Jews and Yahweh - a contract, if you will, pledging exclusive worship in exchange for special service.

The incident with Baal at the foothills of Sinai is one of a few traces that remain in the Bible of the much more complicated, chaotic religion of the Jews from which its present monotheism arose. It makes very little sense if one attempts to understand it in the context of modern Judaeo-Christian theology.

Interesting posts Sapien. Do we have any other evidence of worship Baal and El outside the Torah?

philologos

Sapien wrote:

Yes, but what most Christians fail to understand is that Baal was not believed to be a mere idol, but an actual, living god. And he was not the only one believed in by the ancestors of the Jews, aside from Yahweh. Yahweh was one of a number of tribal gods whose tribe happened to leave the most lasting historical impression and impactful religious legacy. Henotheism means worshipping one god while believing that it is one of many. The Mosaic Covenant is an agreement between the Jews and Yahweh - a contract, if you will, pledging exclusive worship in exchange for special service.

The incident with Baal at the foothills of Sinai is one of a few traces that remain in the Bible of the much more complicated, chaotic religion of the Jews from which its present monotheism arose. It makes very little sense if one attempts to understand it in the context of modern Judaeo-Christian theology.

Sapien: There are several instances of how the Israelites worshipped the idols as Gods in the historical books of the Bible, such as Jeroboam and the 10 golden calves at Bethel (in which the community which threatened Elishas life grew). There was a culture of idol making, and yes, these people believed these were gods, thats the issue that God had with it. "I am the Lord your God, you shall worship no other god but me" was written for a reason. And yes there was Asherah, and other idols that were worshipped as well, it's all documented in the Bible's historical books. As far as I can remember the people of Israel even followed Moabite gods also.

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm not getting into personal slagging. You got arrogant with me by stating "tough, I'm going to give answers based on the bible" [SIC] and I responded in kind.

TBH Hivemind, i would get that perception from your posts here. Maybe its just me. It seems alot of your stuff is practically
'Ok we all know your a bunch of wallies believing in a murdering sky fairy, but if I may ask the following'. I would definately percieve you as someone who has a bit of an inflated view of himself. Obviously I don't know u, but I have thought that from seeing ur postings. I don't know if its intentional or not, but if you really want answers, maybe take the patronising stance down a notch. Or maybe thats just my perception.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

Sapien: There are several instances of how the Israelites worshipped the idols as Gods in the historical books of the Bible, such as Jeroboam and the 10 golden calves at Bethel (in which the community which threatened Elishas life grew). There was a culture of idol making, and yes, these people believed these were gods, thats the issue that God had with it. "I am the Lord your God, you shall worship no other god but me" was written for a reason. And yes there was Asherah, and other idols that were worshipped as well, it's all documented in the Bible's historical books. As far as I can remember the people of Israel even followed Moabite gods also.

So you acknowldege that the Jews believed in and worshipped gods other than Yahweh. Do you believe in these gods? Baal, El, Ashera?

I'm not sure that you understand fully what I'm saying. The Jews believed not only in other gods, but that Yahweh was no more or less powerful than the others. He was only special because of the covenant they made with him.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do we have any other evidence of worship Baal and El outside the Torah?

Absolutely, they were quite commonplace. Ba'al simply means "lord" and was used for a number of gods around the Middle East. The baal worshipped by the Jews was the god Hadad - a god of rain - whose proper name was usually dropped in favour of his title, much like Christians call the god named YHVH by his title "God". Worship of Hadad in particular, and other baals (like Baal Peor, "lord of Peor") was recorded by many other peoples, such as the Akkadians and the Canaanites, all of whom would have been in contact with the Hebrews.

El was a supreme god, rather like Zeus, who appears in a number of local pantheons from the ancient Levant, including those of the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Carthaginians. So powerful was El considered to be that he was the very definition of a god - his name came to mean simply that. So other gods, like Hadad, were called El Hadad. Confusing, I know. The biblical name Elohim is a plural form of El (causing confusion as to who the god of the bible actually is, or whether it is in fact one or many gods), and even Allah is a derivative.

From the Hebrew perspective, it seemed they began with the generic Levantine pantheon with El at the top, his wife Ashera, Hadad (Baal), Yam, Mot and a local upstart called YHVH, either in parallel, or floating in or about the same pantheon. It is certain that the name Yahweh comes later than the rest, probably sometime during the Exodus from Egypt. Eventually Yahweh becomes more popular, and takes over from El as supreme god and husband of Ashera. He is then retrofitted into scripture with claims that he was El all along, or rather, that El was Yahweh by another name. Later, he even absorbs Hadad's role in earlier narratives, and Ashera disappears. From the time of Moses, it appears the Hebrews believed themselves to have a special relationship with Yahweh, and devotion to all other gods diminished and was prohibited. Soon the other gods were forgotten, and scripture rationalised to the interpreation that there was one god all along, with a confusing habit of using different names on different occasions. By about 700 BCE, the Hebrews were about as monotheistic as they are today.

philologos

Sapien wrote:

So you acknowldege that the Jews believed in and worshipped gods other than Yahweh. Do you believe in these gods? Baal, El, Ashera?

I'm not sure that you understand fully what I'm saying. The Jews believed not only in other gods, but that Yahweh was no more or less powerful than the others. He was only special because of the covenant they made with him.

People ignored YHWH according to the Biblical narrative, then the small number of prophets that were left brought the people to believe in YHWH alongside the other idols. This however still violated scriptural law "I am the Lord your God, you shall worship no other gods but me". Kings even incited people to turn away from God and worship other gods. I believe Hezekiah's son Manneseh was regarded as one of the worst even putting tools for worshipping these idols in the temple courtyard. Kings and Chronicles are rather interesting books for getting to know how people rejected YHWH for these other idols.

robindch

Very interesting posts Sapien -- thanks.

Is there much documentation available about the nature and aspirations of these earlier and competing gods?

Specifically, was Yahweh's rise to the top inevitable because his client population supported the military destruction of their enemies, and the conquerors forced the conquered peoples to drop allegiances to other deities in favor of Yahweh? It would seems so from the wanton destruction of populations carried out with his political backing, but I'd like to be more sure than I am.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

People ignored YHWH according to the Biblical narrative, then the small number of prophets that were left brought the people to believe in YHWH alongside the other idols. This however still violated scriptural law "I am the Lord your God, you shall worship no other gods but me". Kings even incited people to turn away from God and worship other gods. I believe Hezekiah's son Manneseh was regarded as one of the worst even putting tools for worshipping these idols in the temple courtyard. Kings and Chronicles are rather interesting books for getting to know how people rejected YHWH for these other idols.

Clearly your emphasis is on a literal interpretation of the Bible. I am more interested in an objective examination of where the Bible came from, and what information we can derive from it about the religious beliefs of the Hebrews at and before the time of its composition. Have a look at this page from Wikipedia. It gives some information on one of the most widely accepted theories about the origin of the Torah - the Documentary Hypothesis. More recent theories only place the composition of the Torah at later dates - the 5th century BCE or after.

As you will see, it is theorised that one of the sources from which the modern Torah was redacted was from a distinctly Yahwist tradition, and Yahweh was seeded into the rest of the text to reconcile the narratives. It just so happens that the form of Genesis that survived in the redaction was Yahwist, so it appears, from a straight reading of the Bible that the god of the Bible is Yahweh from the beginning, and that other names, specifically El or Elohim, come later. This is not the case. Yahweh arose in Hebrew religion much later than El - probably around the thirteenth century BCE, and only became the god of Genesis around the fifth century BCE. The Elohist compositions illustrates this - referring to El up until the account of Moses, and Yahweh after that.

philologos

Wikipedia is hardly as valid as a document that came from the time in question is it? The Torah isn't what I was discussing, it was from the historical books of the Tanakh when idols (including Baal) were being practised at it's highest.

Sapien

robindch wrote:

Is there much documentation available about the nature and aspirations of these earlier and competing gods?

Specifically, was Yahweh's rise to the top inevitable because his client population supported the military destruction of their enemies, and the conquerors forced the conquered peoples to drop allegiances to other deities in favor of Yahweh? It would seems so from the wanton destruction of populations carried out with his political backing, but I'd like to be more sure than I am.

In a sense, yes.

If you ask me, the ascent of Yahweh to supremacy among the Hebrews is down to one man - Moses. Moses, not Abraham or Israel, is the father of the religion of Yahweh - he introduced a brand new god who took over from the older one, El, in the space of a few centuries. A few very eventful centuries, from the escape from Egypt, throught the bloody territorial wars in Canaan, to the occupation under the Babylonians.

The most convincing etymology of the word Yahweh is that it comes from a word meaning "Destroyer".

After a millenium of going along with the commonplace gods of the Levant, the Jews found a new one who, within a generation or two, brought them from being a race of slaves to a powerful kingdom. Yahweh is about smiting enemies and slaughtering the devotees of other gods, whereas El and Hadad they shared with all of their neighbours. Yahweh was theirs and theirs alone, allowing them to become the ultimate in-group - the Chosen People. After four hundred years of separation from their Levantine cousins, and humiliation under the Pharoahs, they were less attached to El, less inclined to share land and worship, and more eager for a god who dealt in plagues, vengeance and conquest.

I am convinced that the Jews worshipped El until the Exodus, when they adopted worship of a new god, Yahweh, whom they retrofitted into their existing mythology between 1400 BCE and 400 BCE. Or, the worship of Yahweh developed during the sojourn in Egypt, possibly influenced by the radical monotheism of Ahkenaton, who reigned during that time, and was crystallised by the success of the Exodus and the establishment of the Unified Kingdom.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

As an aside from the current row over Yahweh's change of approach I was thinking about something else.

The Bible works out to cover a period of roughly 4000bc to about 150AD right?

Now leaving aside the creationist, young earth, noah's ark had two of every animal stuff aside and focussing on the salient fact that man has existed for roughly 250,000 years and has developed many different gods/religions/superstitions etc How does a Chrisitian cope with the apparent absense of Yahweh prior to 4000bc?

Where was Yahweh? Was he a god by another name? If he does exist, and the facts are also true about the length of time man has been walking the earth then how does one reconcile the time differences?

Further, if he invented the world, why didnt he reveal himself to man in the 244,000 (several billion total age of the earth) years intervening?

... seems like an awful long snooze doesnt it?

The Bible works out to cover from the Creation of the earth to about 90AD. You appear to be wanting to keep the 4000BC date on the one hand (period covered by the Bible) but reject it on the other (age of the earth). Yet both are dependent on the young earth stuff.

My understanding is that men, as recorded in Genesis, worshipped God from the earliest of times (whatever date that was) and that the name Yahweh was revealed at a much later date.

Christians believe in progressive revelation - that God revealed more of Himself to successive generations. The revelation of his Name as Yahweh was just one step in this progression which reached its zenith, according to Hebrews 1:1-2, in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The fact that God did not reveal His Name in no way implies that he was absent.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

The Bible works out to cover from the Creation of the earth to about 90AD. You appear to be wanting to keep the 4000BC date on the one hand (period covered by the Bible) but reject it on the other (age of the earth). Yet both are dependent on the young earth stuff.

My understanding is that men, as recorded in Genesis, worshipped God from the earliest of times (whatever date that was) and that the name Yahweh was revealed at a much later date.

Christians believe in progressive revelation - that God revealed more of Himself to successive generations. The revelation of his Name as Yahweh was just one step in this progression which reached its zenith, according to Hebrews 1:1-2, in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The fact that God did not reveal His Name in no way implies that he was absent.

So do you dispute, then, that the religion of the Hebrews was originally henotheistic?

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

Wikipedia is hardly as valid as a document that came from the time in question is it?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which synthesises information on many topics from a variety primary and secondary sources and learned works. The Documentary Hypothesis is over a century old, and is supported, almost uniformly, by the academic community. I'm not sure what you mean by "the time in question"? If you are suggesting that the only documents that can shed light on the Bible are the the Bible itself or contemporary sources, then you can't have much faith in academic endeavor in general. Textual analysis wasn't particularly well developed by the Bronze age.

Jakkass wrote:

The Torah isn't what I was discussing, it was from the historical books of the Tanakh when idols (including Baal) were being practised at it's highest.

Which is nonsense. Baal was being worshiped before recorded history, and by the Hebrews before the earliest text that ended up in the Torah or the Tanahk was written. Worship of Baal predated the worship, by anyone, of Yahweh.

philologos

Sapien wrote:

Which is nonsense. Baal was being worshiped before recorded history, and by the Hebrews before the earliest text that ended up in the Torah or the Tanahk was written. Worship of Baal predated the worship, by anyone, of Yahweh.

Judaism is actually believed to derive from Zoroastrianism.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

So do you dispute, then, that the religion of the Hebrews was originally henotheistic?

Henotheism refers to belief in a plurality of gods while worshipping only one.

A lot depends on your definition of 'god'. The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments refers to other spiritual beings. They are not God (capital G, referring to the Creator) but are gods (small g, powerful spiritual beings). Indeed, Paul refers to satan as "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The Bible tells us that the first men worshipped God. However, by the time of Abraham we know that his family were idolators, worshipping other gods. Abraham was called to serve the one true God only, but his descendants frequently lapsed into the worship of other gods.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

Judaism is actually believed to derive from Zoroastrianism.

I would ask you for some kind of source on this, but I won't bother. It's absolute nonsense, and you've either just made it up or have been taken for a ride. There is no connection between Zoroastrianism and Judaism, beyond vague parallels and them both being ancient religions of carbon-based organisms.

PDN wrote:

Henotheism refers to belief in a plurality of gods while worshipping only one.

Thank you, yes, I tend to know the meanings of words I use myself.

PDN wrote:

A lot depends on your definition of 'god'. The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments refers to other spiritual beings. They are not God (capital G, referring to the Creator) but are gods (small g, powerful spiritual beings). Indeed, Paul refers to satan as "the god of this age" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The Bible tells us that the first men worshipped God.

How delightfully ironic. A lot depends, you see, on the identity of "God".

PDN wrote:

However, by the time of Abraham we know that his family were idolators, worshipping other gods. Abraham was called to serve the one true God only, but his descendants frequently lapsed into the worship of other gods.

I think it is clear that one cannot maintain that the Jews believed in a "one true God" from the time of Abraham and were ever henotheistic.

But this is all quite pointless. There were no "first men", and serious academia tends to be predicated on science, so I can't see us achieving much by investigating the ways in which your attitude towards the Bible meets the understanding arrived at by scholars, beyond saying - it doesn't.

You reject the Documentary Hypothesis outright, I presume?

PDN

Sapien wrote:

Thank you, yes, I tend to know the meanings of words I use myself.

It does no harm to make sure. I have had some crazy dialogues on these boards because some posters use words contrary to their dictionary definition. Others suffer from dyslexia which has led to the occasional misunderstanding. Establishing what we mean by certain terms is a prerequisite to understanding one another.

You reject the Documentary Hypothesis outright, I presume?

I don't reject it on ideological grounds, but I can see weaknesses in it. I am very open to the idea of multiple sources being involved in the forming of the Pentateuch, and I watch with interest the developing debate among Old Testament scholars.

Wellhausen's original Documentary Hypothesis has a number of flaws and many modified forms of it are now preferred. Other scholars, such as Martin Noth, reject the Documentary Hypothesis and instead propose a traditio-historical approach where a number of oral traditions contributed to the Pentateuch.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

So for all intents and purposes he was a lower god than he wound up. nice promotion if you can get it.

So where does that leave Christianity (Or Judaism for that matter)? To my mind that suggests that Yahweh is a usurper of the position held by older gods.

What does this do to his claim of creating the world? Did he nick the idea from the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I'm interested to hear how this is reconciled to faith?

If you want to accept the Documentary Hypothesis then the Epic of Gilgamesh must be dated much later than the worship of Yahweh. This is because the same characteristics form critics use to assign parts of the Pentateuch to the P source are also present in Glilgamesh.

There is no difficulty in reconciling the historical record of the worship of Yahweh with faith. The Bible records that the earliest men worshipped the one true God (known as El). At some stage men mankind began to worship other deities. One of these deities went by the name of Yahweh (possibly linked to a root word meaning 'to fall' or 'to destroy', but more likely derived from the verb 'to be'). There was, of course, considerable debate as to which of these deities was really El.

God, when speaking to Moses from the burning bush, had to use the rather cumbersome self-designation "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." (Exodus 3:6). Moses, understandably, asked for God's name - at which God replied that he was Yahweh. Therefore Yahweh=El.

The fact that some peoples had previously worshipped Yahweh in a corrupted form, or indeed that the Israelites used words and names derived from other deities, should cause no difficulty to any Christian. We all borrow religious words from different cultures without necessarily implying any endorsement of their beliefs. For example, we may call a lorry a juggernaut, but that does not mean we worship Krishna as the Lord of the Universe. We also speak of Wednesday, Thursday etc. without implying that we believe in Woden or Thor as gods.

In fact, my own screen name, PDN, stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune - a play on words instantly recognisable to other evangelical Christians who are familiar with Greek mythology. However, it does not mean that I recognise Neptune as being a real deity.

MDTyKe

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can hardly expect a running commentary of millions of years in one book, can we? We'd probably not understand it anyway.. makes the fun in discovering the dinosaurs :P

Anyway - I know it sounds like a cop out, but we have all that we need for basic faith - and since the whole thing is about faith, if we had the entire commentary, we would have proof (which can't exist alongside faith). Sort of a catch-22


Matt

PDN

MDTyKe wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can hardly expect a running commentary of millions of years in one book, can we? We'd probably not understand it anyway.. makes the fun in discovering the dinosaurs :P

Anyway - I know it sounds like a cop out, but we have all that we need for basic faith - and since the whole thing is about faith, if we had the entire commentary, we would have proof (which can't exist alongside faith). Sort of a catch-22


Matt

Careful, Matt. Any time any believers here state that we don't pretend to know everything we get accused of being proud of our ignorance.

Hivemind187

JimiTime wrote:

TBH Hivemind, i would get that perception from your posts here. Maybe its just me. It seems alot of your stuff is practically
'Ok we all know your a bunch of wallies believing in a murdering sky fairy, but if I may ask the following'. I would definately percieve you as someone who has a bit of an inflated view of himself. Obviously I don't know u, but I have thought that from seeing ur postings. I don't know if its intentional or not, but if you really want answers, maybe take the patronising stance down a notch. Or maybe thats just my perception.

Now that is a straw man.

My comprehension of the universe is well founded and honestly, if you want to take good humor as deliberate antagonism thats your issue.

Frankly, making statements like this only show your hand as taking an online forum WAY too seriously.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote:

Wikipedia is hardly as valid as a document that came from the time in question is it? The Torah isn't what I was discussing, it was from the historical books of the Tanakh when idols (including Baal) were being practised at it's highest.

Well the wikipaedia entry in neutral whereas the document alleged to be from the time is biased in its own favor. I would argue that makes it MORE rather than less valid.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

The Bible works out to cover from the Creation of the earth to about 90AD. You appear to be wanting to keep the 4000BC date on the one hand (period covered by the Bible) but reject it on the other (age of the earth). Yet both are dependent on the young earth stuff.

My understanding is that men, as recorded in Genesis, worshipped God from the earliest of times (whatever date that was) and that the name Yahweh was revealed at a much later date.

Christians believe in progressive revelation - that God revealed more of Himself to successive generations. The revelation of his Name as Yahweh was just one step in this progression which reached its zenith, according to Hebrews 1:1-2, in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The fact that God did not reveal His Name in no way implies that he was absent.

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!

I asked that the creationist mumbo-jumbo be put aside in the hopes that rational people who are aware of the evidence and of the facts would explain how it is possible to reconcile a religious position regarding the existence of Yahweh (and his apparently sudden appearance at the begining of the bible).

I have at no point suggested that the 4000bc date is valid as a point of the origin of earth, rather I have said the opposite.

I want to know how the facts fit with the mythology of the Bible (or for that matter the earlier Torah etc).

Kindly read the question before making allegations.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

If you want to accept the Documentary Hypothesis then the Epic of Gilgamesh must be dated much later than the worship of Yahweh. This is because the same characteristics form critics use to assign parts of the Pentateuch to the P source are also present in Glilgamesh.

There is no difficulty in reconciling the historical record of the worship of Yahweh with faith. The Bible records that the earliest men worshipped the one true God (known as El). At some stage men mankind began to worship other deities. One of these deities went by the name of Yahweh (possibly linked to a root word meaning 'to fall' or 'to destroy', but more likely derived from the verb 'to be'). There was, of course, considerable debate as to which of these deities was really El.

God, when speaking to Moses from the burning bush, had to use the rather cumbersome self-designation "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." (Exodus 3:6). Moses, understandably, asked for God's name - at which God replied that he was Yahweh. Therefore Yahweh=El.

The fact that some peoples had previously worshipped Yahweh in a corrupted form, or indeed that the Israelites used words and names derived from other deities, should cause no difficulty to any Christian. We all borrow religious words from different cultures without necessarily implying any endorsement of their beliefs. For example, we may call a lorry a juggernaut, but that does not mean we worship Krishna as the Lord of the Universe. We also speak of Wednesday, Thursday etc. without implying that we believe in Woden or Thor as gods.

In fact, my own screen name, PDN, stands for Porpoise Driven Neptune - a play on words instantly recognisable to other evangelical Christians who are familiar with Greek mythology. However, it does not mean that I recognise Neptune as being a real deity.

Firstly, the Epic of Gilgamesh, to my knowledge, pre-dates Babylon as a Sumerian tradition which puts it closer to 6000bc a fry sight older than the incident with the burning bush...

... which leads me to the point that the incandescent shrub "claimed" to be these gods yet could only muster the strength to barbecue a rhododendron. You quietly avert your eyes from the possibility that he was LYING. Something rather common in the Gods throughout mythology (Greek, Norse, Pagan, Celtic, Middle Eastern, Indian, Asian ... all of them).

Hivemind187

MDTyKe wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can hardly expect a running commentary of millions of years in one book, can we? We'd probably not understand it anyway.. makes the fun in discovering the dinosaurs :P

Anyway - I know it sounds like a cop out, but we have all that we need for basic faith - and since the whole thing is about faith, if we had the entire commentary, we would have proof (which can't exist alongside faith). Sort of a catch-22


Matt

Assuming we need faith is like assuming we need shoes.

They are a part of everyday life but they are categorically not a requirement to survival.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!

I asked that the creationist mumbo-jumbo be put aside in the hopes that rational people who are aware of the evidence and of the facts would explain how it is possible to reconcile a religious position regarding the existence of Yahweh (and his apparently sudden appearance at the begining of the bible).

I have at no point suggested that the 4000bc date is valid as a point of the origin of earth, rather I have said the opposite.

I want to know how the facts fit with the mythology of the Bible (or for that matter the earlier Torah etc).

Kindly read the question before making allegations.

What on earth are you shouting about? There's no straw man, just a simple observation about your post. If you are unable to entertain polite responses without shouting in caps or accusing anyone who disagrees with you of making allegations then maybe you are not ready to enter into discussions on an online forum?

Your original post stated:

The Bible works out to cover a period of roughly 4000bc to about 150AD right?

The only people I have ever heard making such a statement, specifically the 4000BC bit, are young earth creationists. Therefore I pointed out the inconsistency of rejecting 4000BC as a date for the creation of man but retaining it as a date for the period covered by the Bible. Do you, in fact, have a source for your assertion that the Bible covers a period beginning around 4000BC?

It's a simple polite question, and I would appreciate a straightforward answer with as little shouting or hysteria as you can muster.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Firstly, the Epic of Gilgamesh, to my knowledge, pre-dates Babylon as a Sumerian tradition which puts it closer to 6000bc a fry sight older than the incident with the burning bush...

... which leads me to the point that the incandescent shrub "claimed" to be these gods yet could only muster the strength to barbecue a rhododendron. You quietly avert your eyes from the possibility that he was LYING. Something rather common in the Gods throughout mythology (Greek, Norse, Pagan, Celtic, Middle Eastern, Indian, Asian ... all of them).

Not so much a point as a piece of silliness. The miraculous aspect of the burning bush was not that the bush burned, but rather that it was not consumed by the fire. Burning bushes would hardly merit a second glance in a hot dry desert.

I am, however, rather intrigued that you entertain the possibility that an entity other than God (an entity capable of telling lies) actually spoke to someone out of the midst of a burning bush. I admire, but do not share, your faith.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

What on earth are you shouting about? There's no straw man, just a simple observation about your post. If you are unable to entertain polite responses without shouting in caps or accusing anyone who disagrees with you of making allegations then maybe you are not ready to enter into discussions on an online forum?

Your original post stated:


The only people I have ever heard making such a statement, specifically the 4000BC bit, are young earth creationists. Therefore I pointed out the inconsistency of rejecting 4000BC as a date for the creation of man but retaining it as a date for the period covered by the Bible. Do you, in fact, have a source for your assertion that the Bible covers a period beginning around 4000BC?

It's a simple polite question, and I would appreciate a straightforward answer with as little shouting or hysteria as you can muster.

PDN,

It IS a straw man because I quantified my point regarding the 4000bc with a question mark. The point was that the bible is commonly purported to cover those periods, I am open to recalculations but it doesnt change the core of my question.

You have chosen to take a small part, which was open to minor interpretation and to reevaluation and attempted to discredit what I was saying with it. A very simple thing to do because it has nothing really to do with the core question.

So you ARE straw manning me. If you can't manage a conversation or an argument without resorting to childish methodologies then I suggest you follow your own implied advice.

philologos

Hivemind you have an awful habit of multiple posting, could you not fit all that into one post.

Hivemind187 wrote:

I asked that the creationist mumbo-jumbo be put aside in the hopes that rational people who are aware of the evidence and of the facts would explain how it is possible to reconcile a religious position regarding the existence of Yahweh (and his apparently sudden appearance at the begining of the bible).

You have to realise that there are several viewpoints to the age of the earth within Christianity. By refusing to accept one of them you are refusing full discussion on the question you have asked.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Not so much a point as a piece of silliness. The miraculous aspect of the burning bush was not that the bush burned, but rather that it was not consumed by the fire. Burning bushes would hardly merit a second glance in a hot dry desert.

I am, however, rather intrigued that you entertain the possibility that an entity other than God (an entity capable of telling lies) actually spoke to someone out of the midst of a burning bush. I admire, but do not share, your faith.

I entertain it as a mythology, not as a fact. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.

I honestly dont care if the bush burned or didnt, because I dont actually believe it happened at all. Whether the supposed miracle was that the bush was not consumed or got up and danced a jig is not relevant to me (although I find it hilarious) I was merely making the observation.

I believe, as many do, that the bible is nothing more than a collection of horrible stories and parables designed to lend credence to the dictum's of power hungry leaders of their time. It is far easier to rally a people behind you if you tell them a higher power or a creator figure has told them they can conquer anyone with his grace.

Its rudimentary propaganda and you see very similar things happening in the middle east today with radicalized Muslim clerics convincing young disaffected men that if they walk into a cafe and detonate a suicide bomb they will go to heaven as a hero and a martyr.