>Watched a video about how the Abrahamic God was created from the fusion of the storm god YHWH and El.
Obviously it's blasphemous, but how do we refute these archeological claims?
>Watched a video about how the Abrahamic God was created from the fusion of the storm god YHWH and El.
We ban those chuddies and make up ridiculous cope by calling it apologetics
You can't, and btw the main source for this theory is the Bible itself.
People realized this because "God" is referred in the Hebrew Bible as both El and Yahweh.
El is much more sparse in use compared to Elohim however, which is the world typically translated as God.
Isn't the -im suffix in Hebrew plural?
Masculine regular plural
So Elohim would be referring to multiple male gods then?
no.
Yes, but “Elohim” is also used as a singular epithet of the most high God of Israel, and takes singular verb agreement in that case. When it is plural it means “gods” or “angels”.
Yes, it is a plural ending, but for reasons unknown Hebrew developed so that Elohim both refers to multiple gods and the chief god of the pantheon.
You have to use context to determine which meaning the word has taken (like if noun is followed by a singular or plural verb)
Also btw Elohim is a weird plural. Under normal rules the plural of el would be elim, this is what it is in Ugaritic. For some reason in Hebrew the plural gained an extra syllable.
You can't really.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/721377
Most priests I've asked have simply coped and said that "Satan must've planted those archeological findings" but that's pretty lame.
>one column is in order
>the other is a collection of different quotes all jumbled and out of order that have been cherry picked for similarity
sad, zeitgeist tier even
anyways there's no way you can reasonably expect a random priest to be familiar with this autism, they are too busy doing things IRL to waste time on this nonsense
I think the bigger point is that the overall message/imagery is the same in both, more or less.
Some of those thematic parallels are very tenuous. Others, like the Ancient of Days one, are stronger.
Regardless, if two stories share a theme it doesn't mean they are necessarily connected in a casual way.
It doesn't mean the Hebrews must have ripped off the Baal cycle. It would actually make more sense if both works shared a common source tradition.
Frankly, and this is my own misgiving, I've seen many people claim that archaeological finds supporting the biblical narrative are frauds. But I've never seen anyone suggest that the Ugaritic Baal Cycle could be fraudulent. Now, I don't really know anything about it's provenance, but it's passing similarity to biblical content suggests to me it's not impossible that it could have been doctored to match elements of the biblical narrative. Just a thought.
>it could have been doctored to match elements of the biblical narrative
It's way more likely it stood as the foundation for said Biblical narrative based on when it was dated though
The foundation for the Baal cycle is the season, a narrative about the life and death of vegetables.
>Unique among the Ugarit texts are the earliest known abecedaries, lists of letters in alphabetic cuneiform, where not only the canonical order of Phoenician script is evidenced, but also the traditional names for letters of the alphabet.
I mean, doesn't this seem a little too good to be true?
Oh yeah we just found the oldest abecedaries ever, and what do you know they confirm everything we already knew about the subject! How convenient.
I mean I'm an open minded dude, but come on. Realistically, how often does this sort of thing happen?
>Approximately 1,500 texts and fragments have been found to date,[2] all of which have been dated to the 13th and 12th centuries BCE.[2]
How exactly did they date them? Do they just assume they are all as old as the site or what?
Again, there's no reason to assume one narrative must have plagiarized another when the simpler explanation is both descend from a common source.
>how exactly did they date them?
Radiocarbon dating
In 1928? Wasn't invented yet, not till the 40s.
Besides, you can't radiocarbon date stone.
We have since radiocarbon dated a lot of discoveries we found even centuries ago, moron
>radio dating of known age: doesn't work
>radio dating of unknown age: assumed to work
There's nothing spiritual about self-righteousness and idolatry in false religions and worldly "spiritual" pursuits of occultism. Maybe you should get to know the true living God instead of an idol or a cow, or like the "enlightened" secular world that worships nature.
But here's the thing, how do I know it's the true living God? If we're talking about extra-dimensional beings we can interact with there are no safeguards to say you are communicating with YHVH. In the same way that if I use a ouiji board to speak to my grandma, I have no ability to know if it's my grandma or something claiming to be my grandma.
You do know that once a site is uncovered that radiocarbon dating is more unreliable due to contamination, right? How many samples did they take, of what? Baskets, bits of charcoal?
You're just making this shit up because there's next to no public information on the dating method or rationale used for the Ugarit sites. The dating is an estimate based on archaeological theories until proven otherwise.
Wow, so contamination makes test results unreliable? Incredible!
Good thing archeologists take precautions to prevent contamination of a sample.
What precautions did they take while excavating Ugarit, decades before radiocarbon dating was invented?
Again, you have nothing. No source, no argument. Only "trust the science, white lab coat man say true true".
>Obviously it's blasphemous, but how do we refute these archeological claims?
Why waste your time with them? They'll always come up with anything as long as it doesn't support Scripture, or rather explicitly attacks it. They literally believe their ancestors were fish and that everything was created by nothing, they're not going to be persuaded by facts or logic or reason. They're not sensible or rational people, no matter how much they'll scream until they're blue in the face that they are. In less than 3 months time you'll see the fruits of their beliefs in every major city in the West and it goes for an entire month of it.
>asking priests for guidance or truth
NGMI
>In less than 3 months time you'll see the fruits of their beliefs in every major city in the West and it goes for an entire month of it.
Even sooner, just two more weeks!
>not KJV
>Most priests I've asked have simply coped and said that "Satan must've planted those archeological findings" but that's pretty lame.
And did the whole bus clap?
el just means elite, lower case g god.
YHWH has been associated with storm dieties but it would be an oversimplification to categorize him as strictly a storm god due to his complex character development in the bible.
In my church we cope by saying they’re two interpretations of the original God
It definitely depends on cultural context. None of us here are Canaanites.
See I don't understand why abrahamists can't say
>"Yes the Hebrews originally worshipped many gods and Yahweh in the original stories was no better than Zeus, but the Hebrew writers were misguided and the true nature of the singular, omnipotent, and good god that we worship has been revealed over time. Thinkers such as Zoroaster Plato and others have all come to the same conclusion of monotheism and we just have different images of the same singular God from which everything emanated."
Apparently even slightly criticizing the bullshit insane old testament stories, many of which were supposed to be allegorical anyways, means I'm a evil, blaspheming, satan-worshipping gnostic atheist or something. Adapt your worldview or your religion is doomed.
Because oversimplification is never good senpai.
But the bible literally says over and over again that the Israelites were repeat idolators. They keep getting punished because of it, it's a theme.
Like, they do say that.
>Yahweh in the original stories was no better than Zeus
Yahweh didn't castrate his own father, and didn't have brothers and sisters who were also gods. In the bible, he is depicted as the source of divinity itself. Not as a mere partaker in divinity, as Zeus is.
Yahweh had a wife and sons
Uh, no. Not really.
The angels are called Sons of God, but that doesn't mean they were birthed to him like Chronos sired sons with Rhea. No, they are created beings rather than begotten.
>he had a father
lol no, that's not in the bible
this is your headcanon
>Israel was Yahweh's inheritance
Israel was elevated among the nations of men, in the same way that Yahweh is head of the heavenly host. Because he adopted them.
>they're actual gods at odds with Yahweh
Yeah dude, nobody disputes this. You're not making a strong point. One so inclined could simply point out that the LXX says the nations are numbered according to the number of the angels. So these beings worshipped as gods could just be fallen angels.
Your guys were matrilineal
Yes
>and didn't have brothers and sisters who were also gods.
Actually he had a father, El, and therefore brothers.
>In the bible, he is depicted as the source of divinity itself.
Eventually yes but originally El was the creator not Yahweh. Israel was Yahweh's inheritance.
>But the bible literally says over and over again that the Israelites were repeat idolators. They keep getting punished because of it, it's a theme.
Right because it's supposed to belong to Yahweh. Remember how the OT is full of other gods? They aren't just idols, they're actual gods at odds with Yahweh and sometimes beat him like Chemosh.
Also I'm referring to his character and greatness. Yahweh is depicted as Vain, jealous, unjust, genocidal and not all-powerful. And that wasn't even changed like the multiple gods thing. Christians need to drop most of the OT.
>Yahweh didn't castrate his own father
Neither did Zeus.
The bible literally says the Hebrews/Israelites routinely worshiped other gods and that that was wrong
You're missing the point of the thread.
The stories of OT were originally told with multiple gods but were later tweaked just to have one. It's why the Bible is such an incoherent mess.
You've read the edits not the original stories
>The stories of OT were originally told with multiple gods but were later tweaked just to have one.
moron did you read the OP?
This isn't even disputed, it's a widely accepted fact by historians.
You're just a brainwashed dickhead ignoring reality instead of adapting and that's why people are leaving your religion in droves
please provide chapter and verse or gtfo
There is a broad consensus among modern scholars that the religion of ancient Israel was polytheistic, involving many gods and goddesses.[27] The supreme god was Yahweh, whose name appears as an element on personal seals from the late 9th to the 6th centuries BCE.[28] Alongside Yahweh was his consort Asherah,[29] (replaced by the goddess "Anat-Yahu" in the temple of the 5th century israeli settlement Elephantine in Egypt),[30] and various biblical passages indicate that statues of the goddess were kept in Yahweh's temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria.[31][32]
Get fricked
I don't see and chapter or verses of the OT. bye troll.
The OT was changed loser
That was stated multiple times in this thread.
I know you can read! I believe in you!
Exactly you have no religious texts from """ancient Israel""" to prove anything. frick off.
>This isn't even disputed, it's a widely accepted fact by historians.
Like who, Richard Carrier?
NTA, but Mark Smith.
Read the Early History of God.
>it's a widely accepted fact by historians.
No, it isn't. It's astroturfed as frick IMO.
You people pretend like the documentary hypothesis is bullet proof. But it really isn't, it's just a contrivance.
A hypothetical reconstruction of the "original" religion based on the presuppositions of a few people. Not based on any ancient testimony or records, just the headcanon of people who autistically decontextualize the books in the bible verse by verse and say "oh this one verse must have been inserted later because if it wasnt my headcanon wouldnt make sense".
A fanciful speculation about "Yahwists", "Elohists", "Deuteronomists" and nothing more. These are categories contrived to fit the theory which preassumes the bible was maliciously edited multiple times because books written centuries apart by different people arent *perfectly* consistent. This is reflected by late 20th century reassessment of it's basic assumptions.
In fact, I can play that same game with the Baal cycle. Originally, Baal was actually three different gods but the "Baalist" faction maliciously edited the Baal cycle to make him the chief of the gods when originally it was Yahweh. Ez.
>which preassumes the bible was maliciously edited multiple times because books written centuries apart by different people arent *perfectly* consistent.
It's the literal opposite, it's because books supposedly written centuries apart show the signs of having been partially written, edited or tampered with by the same people.
That's easy to say, but I don't see you proving anything by quoting verses.
But regardless, that's actually what the bible claims happened. Crazy right?
See Ezra the Scribe had to reconstruct all the holy scriptures that were lost after Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. That's why the OT is written in an Aramaic script, it's the one Ezra used.
See whereas Moses wrote the original Pentateuch, the version we have now came from the hand of Ezra.
Again that's literally what the bible says so when you say "oh but it looks to me like one person did this", that's actually the canonical explanation. You're not breaking new ground here, you're just trying to reframe the problem into abstraction.
This is a logical fallacy. We should decide how the israelites conceived of their God by reading what they said about their God. Unless scholars can show real evidence that the israelites ever considered YHWH to be anything other than the one true universal Creator of the universe (which they cannot do), we must reject their arguments based on the etymology of the word.
The argument that using different names and titles for God evidences multiple authorship is especially weak. In just a small excerpt from the book of Genesis, God is called “God Most High,” “Producer of heaven and earth,” “Sovereign Lord Jehovah,” “God of sight,” “God Almighty,” “God” , “true God” and “Judge of all the earth”. (Genesis 14:18, 19; 15:2; 16:13; 17:1, 3, 18; 18:25) Did different writers write these Bible texts? And in the case of Genesis 28:13, where do the terms “Elohim” (God) and “Jehovah” appear together? Did two writers collaborate to write that verse?
Shut up
Anon, he is trying to argue with you. You can't just expect people to acquiese to your opinions by magic.
Also, I would gander if they were tweaked to just have one then we wouldn't be able to tell.
Also, this is worth adressing. The book od Daniel generally dated to the Hellenistic period, especifically the 160s DC, while the events that take place within are around the 500s BC. The Ugaritic Baal cycle is from 1300 BC and was long forgotten by the time of the book. Ugarit itself was destroyed in the bonze age collapse.
You are dumb.
>DC
I meant BC. Just to be clear.
>Anon, he is trying to argue with you. You can't just expect people to acquiese to your opinions by magic.
It's not an argument in good faith and they're not my opinions he's deliberately ignoring the rest of the thread and asking me to quote the Bible, a fallible source, instead of real evidence.
>The inscription identifies him and who it is next to him. It’s his consort Asherah a goddess who has the head of a cow. The Hebrews once worshipped many gods and the people of the ancient Middle East even worshipped the same gods as other tribes.
This is just one of the many pieces of archeological evidence that shows they were polytheistic.
Most Genesis is outright stolen from Sumerian myth.
Tbh I don't think evidence of them being polytheistic is particularly damning.
See: Genesis, all those parts about Israel falling in disgrace and worshipping other gods.
>Most Genesis is outright stolen from Sumerian myth.
Abraham is from Ur of the Chaldeans, according to Genesis.
Then again you could argue that the bible has the true story and that the Sumerian version is a corruption. It's a faith thing at the end.
moronic.
This proves that you don't know shit.
His photo represents Bes, an Egyptian god of mothers, children and households.
He was the jester of the Egyptian Pantheon. It's not Hebrew at all
and his picture represents kuntillet arjub and his female consort, beset.
they were literally shaped like a monkey, look at the tail.... and this shit was implemented in the group-C Nubians.
>The Ugaritic Baal cycle is from 1300 BC and was long forgotten by the time of the book.
poetic memory
The cultural legacy of Ugaritic is close to zero. That entire tradition got razed to the ground in the LBAC.
what about the entire canaanite religion
Brother tradition. And regardless we are talking about if the book of Daniel could be inspired by the Ugaritic Baal cycle. Which given the distance, it could not.
poetic memory
This actually makes a lot of sense.
Most of OT is unironic low-effort plagiarism from other "Pagan" religions.
Which also explains why OT was actually composed much later.
This is sort of true and sort of not. There are numerous allusions to there being other gods in the OT, and yes many of the stories are related to stories and myths in Mesopotamia and the Levant that have many gods.
However, the stories as they come to us now are incredibly Yahweh-centric, the written forms were not redacted from some older versions that featured multiple gods as central figures. This would have happened before these texts, probably in oral tradition.
There are also mentions of the Divine Counsel, and references to other gods do survive like in the theophany in Habakkuk when they are subservient to Yahweh.
Even today subservient deities in Judaism and Christianity still exist, they just either became part of the Godhead and thus God, or they're not really "gods", they're demoted to angels.
The Bible isn't incoherent, it's only to you because you're evil and wicked and carnally minded.
Basically, it's a (You) problem. Sucks to suck.
>why won't you accept our false historical narratives devised explicitly to attack your faith and nation, goyim?
You're a fool.
The bible is actually incoherent,though.
You are moronic if you don't see that.
>I don't understand it
>therefore nobody can
>I am very smart
The meme doesnt work in this context boyo sorry to say. Also who claimed to be smart? They just pointed shit out
k bro
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/yahweh-was-originally-a-canaanite-god-the-jews-were-originally-polytheists-and-why-do-you-ignore-the-sumerian-gods/
>First of all, you make claims here but do not back them up with evidence. I am not being critical, as I definitely would like to hear from you, but unless you can provide evidence to support your contention that YHWH was first a Canaanite God, I will struggle to agree with your conclusion. I understand that the names El or Elohim can be traced to Sumerian or Canaaninte roots,. I have stated that repeatedly both at the web site and in my lectures, but I have never seen evidence that the name YHWH had any roots other than in Judaism. Do you have evidence to present to support your contention? I believe that you do not. My info that YHWH originated with the israelites comes from a very good source–the Bible, which happens to be rooted in the second millennium BC.
>My info that YHWH originated with the israelites comes from a very good source–the Bible, which happens to be rooted in the second millennium BC.
>Good source.
>The Bible.
LMAO.
isn't El just like an honorific or some generic term like "god" is? and I thought God doesn't have a name and just decided to call Himself Yahweh to make it easier for them. obvs even the word "God" isn't His name so I assumed calling Him a lot of different names was acceptable.
Isn't the Arabic Allah derived from Al-El or The El?
>how dare reality not line up with my beliefs!
>how can we refute reality guys?
There are numerous examples from the DSS of YHWH being replaced with El when the former became taboo, search "a5" here. The identity appears beyond doubt.
https://www.twu.ca/sites/default/files/330418_pdf_331138_23b9f692-8718-11e4-b9a0-5421ef8616fa_lake_j.pdf
I don't understand why Christians don't simply augment their religion as information is uncovered. Granted I don't really understand why Christians stop at Christianity instead of examining the esoteric. I mean honestly if you're already willing to accept a spiritual being why stop at the first one?
There's no need to, this is one pet theory forwarded by a few academics with a bone to pick. Not authoritative.
You might as well post this in an evolution thread, at least that has some real evidence behind it.
But then you'd see Christians who literally have already accepted evolution, and wouldn't have a point.
It's also mind boggling that you seem to think Christianity itself isn't esoteric (Isopsephy in the early orthodox church), or that Christians don't bother learning about other religions. Many don't, but that's a dumb generalization. I'd be willing to be lt you don't really know too much about the "esoteric" or Christianity yourself.
Yeah that was reductive, any religion is esoteric in nature considering it dwells in the immaterial. What I'm trying to get at is that if we're willing to accept the supernatural it doesn't make sense to pick and choose. Christians perform rituals and invokations in their daily life all the time and yet they have a specific issue with magicians doing the exact same thing. Why? It's using the exact same forces, the only difference is cultural assumptions.
>they have a specific issue with magicians doing the exact same thing. Why?
Well, there are things explicitly forbidden in the bible like necromancy and divination.
Other forms of magic are in more of a grey area, alchemy for example could be considered a kind of pharmakaia but it was considered okay by some.
But you're missing the greater point, in Christianity all magic is considered forbidden and yet magical practice is performed on a daily basis using YHVH or Jesus. Basically what I'm trying to get at is why not accept the existence of all immaterial instead of stopping at the first spiritual awakening. Go beyond into a modern esoteric Christianity where God can be examined further using the hindsight of history and tools of the 21st century. Knowing that YHWH evolved doesn't disprove its existence, it simply expands our understanding of its realm.
>yet magical practice is performed on a daily basis using YHVH or Jesus.
citation needed
Catholicism.
But jokes aside the act of prayer is itself an invokation which is a form of magic.
Magic is trickery, like selling someone a poison apple or something.
Miracles are divine intervention, such as God answering your prayers.
>in Christianity all magic is considered forbidden
Not really. Certain things definitely are, but root cutting is tolerated just as an example. At least so long as you aren't poisoning people or laying curses.
There is a passage in Matthew about Peter being given the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth. That's magical language, binding and loosing.
>magical practice is performed on a daily basis using YHVH or Jesus
Prayer and supplication isn't really magic. It may be effective like magic, but they're different. Sacrifice on the other hand, toes the line. But Christians leave that up to Jesus.
>YHWH evolved
Nah, Jesus is eternally begotten. Eternity doesn't leave a lot of room for evolution.
>why not accept the existence of all immaterial
Dude unicorns and wieneratrice are in the bible, is that not enough?
>There is a passage in Matthew about Peter being given the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth
Yes but it's justified because it's using Jesus as the source, the process doesn't change just the religious opinion. If someone were to say the same thing using Bhudda it would be considered evil.
>Prayer and supplication isn't really magic
Any form of invoking the immaterial is magic if we take things logically. If you invoke Jesus for someone to be healed and perform a ritual you are practicing magic.
>is that not enough?
No, what I'm looking for is expansion of what is considered acceptable.
Yes!
>Yes!
That's pretty cool. I do know that several signs of god that happened in the last decade, *have* been with lightning.
So if someone believes in Monotheistic God, but sees old Pagan gods as sundered/shard/culturally localized aspects of one ultimately greater whole -- Does that make them a Polytheist or a Monotheist or both?
That's a good question, out of curiousity what is the purpose of believing in a specific monotheistic God?
>out of curiousity what is the purpose of believing in a specific monotheistic God?
Basically out of the belief we all come from one thing, call it Plato's Idea or the big bang
I don't disagree with that but I find that it can be reductive. It's like saying we all come out of one ecosystem, yes that might technically be true but it's missing a lot of important details. To me to accept one aspect of the supernatural means it's necessary to accept the rest; I'm not a Christian but I believe in their God as much as any other because of how I consider the paranormal. I think it's odd to pick and choose esoteric beliefs because you can never get a full picture otherwise.
The amount of information uncovered so far is enough to give some tantalizing ideas, but the scholars coming to conclusions like El/Yahweh syncretism are jumping the gun. There isn't yet enough data for such strong claims to be anything more than theories. Nevertheless many Christian scholars have been adjusting their thinking in response to new discoveries. It's increasingly common for them to talk about how Hebrew tradition actually accepted the broad framework of the ANE's cosmology and simply spun it to a Hebraic perspective with polemics, so seeing a lot of material from contemporary pagan religions in Hebrew scripture would be expected. This is, for example, Michael Heiser's take on the Flood myth. Christians who are still denying the validity of recent archeology or its possible implications are just behind the times and don't realize there is Christian scholarship already taking it all in stride.
>Made from the fusion of Storm God and El
Wouldn't this also make Zeus and every other thunder god also God (with a capital G) pulling on this line of thought?
He looks like he is called rasheed and sells kebab.
>Yahweh is Jupiter
>El is Caelus
>Yahweh-El is Jupiter Caelus
Same-same but different but still same.
Caelus team-up with his grandson Jupiter to defeat his son Saturn.
>Michael Heiser
Extremely underrated, taken too soon. I don't agree with him on everything, but he did educate me on subjects I hadn't previously considered.