where did this name even come from?
>muh bible
no give me historical evidence
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
where did this name even come from? >muh bible. no give me historical evidence
Why do you care if you don't even care about the bible?
so you almighty god doesn't give us any prove of his existence except the bible? dose not that make spiderman true too since we have spider man cartoon book?
Proving anything about God is not going to help you. What made you people focus on this of all things? It's a popular obsession, but it's not even step 1. You should be worried about what he actually wants. That requires true faith.
How do you know the Bible accurately captures what God wants? Because the Bible says it does? I mean, the Vedas also claim they're telling the truth about Divinity. Why is that any less likely?
What does the Lord truly want?
Life
You cannot be interested in a religious text in a secular way now?
Like St. Thomas Aquinas said, the scriptures are only death to an outsider. You would have been better off had you not read anything. Just as those cities that were close to Christ were cursed worse than Sodom itself.
>"And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”-Matthew 11:23-24
You sound an itty bitty biased and irrational, anon
The scriptures are death to every outsider, including me once. But for some of us, we were baptized and rose from the dead. For those of you who persist in the state of death, I find it tragic but it doesn't affect me. There's nothing to be irrational about. I'd rather spare you. All you're doing is adding more things God will know you can't play stupid about.
>but it doesn't affect me.
See, you can be indifferent when you want to.
Just use that indifference now and stop proselytising
>You need to know about Jesus
>No you can’t research him from an unbiased academic perspective
Here's a great video on YHVH specifically.
Basically YHVH emerged as one of many children of El (Elohim) in the Canaanite pantheon - of which El was the highest Deity. What really distinguished the bourgeoning israelites from the rest of the Canaanites was their cult of YHVH - which was at first henotheistic (acknowledged the existence of other Gods while worshipping YHVH primarily) and then, over the course of centuries, became monotheistic (which is how YHVH is still worshipped by israelites today). There's a reason so many descriptions of YHVH in the Old Testament are more or less directly lifted from the Ugaritic Ba'al Cycle.
Over the course of the proto-Jews transition from henotheism to monotheism, YHVH became conflated with El for obvious reasons. The lingering syncretism at play is super interesting to delve into.
>lingering syncretism at play is super interesting to delve into.
It wasn't lingering. It was widespread. And none of it is interesting, except to homosexuals looking for an apologetic to carry on their sins. That's all mythicists amount to. They're desperate to justify themselves and reimagine a bible that supports an entirely different worldview.
The bible itself testifies of syncretists, with the Prophets against them. In some cases, the prophet was virtually alone, like Elijah, living in caves. And yet he is the one to follow. This was never a popularity game.
This ignores what the OT explicitly tells us, that the cult of YHWH was imported into Canaan.
The archeological evidence doesn't support that, but it does make sense why the authors of the Tanach would want people to believe that was true. It's the same reason why those authors invented Moses despite the fact the israelites were never enslaved by the Pharoah during the time they claimed to be (because at that point they were still polytheistic Canaanites).
>The archeological evidence
What archaeological evidence
Here's just one example, but I would recommend reading more into it yourself.
https://www.livescience.com/canaanite-temple-in-buried-city-israel.html
Google Scholar is a great resource for this. Just use the keywords "YHVH" "BAAL" "CANAANITE" etc. and you'll find hundreds of peer-reviewed articles.
https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/5979/
A link is not archaelogical evidence. Argue your own point. I'm open to being wrong, but that's not going to cut it.
If you had opened the link you'd see they found a 3,000-year-old Canaanite temple discovered in a buried city in Israel. They found two silver-plated bronze figurines of the Canaanite gods Baal and Resheph a few days later. Both are shown "smiting" their enemies, with one arm held high. There's a reason Israel was later regarded as the "Holy Land" for the israelites - it was the Holy Land for the Canaanites they sprung from.
Seriously, there's overwhelming evidence, you just have to read into it.
>Resheph
Oh you mean the god of the Rechabites, a subgroup of the Kenites, who Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, is alternatively referred to as being the high priest of?
Moses never existed. Egyptians kept meticulous records and histories and there is no mention at all of Moses or the Hebrew departure through the red sea.
Moses was a priest of Akhenaten, who then went on to create his own flavour of monotheism. Freud said so
Freud was wrong then. No serious historian today will tell you that Moses actually existed.
That's not true, in current scholarship there is about a 50/50 split between whether or not there was a historical Moses.
That's a straight up lie and you know it.
It's literally not. I'm not saying anyone thinks there was a historical exodus like the Bible describes, but there is still significant debate on the possibility of the existence of a historical Moses figure. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&pg=PA99#v=onepage&q&f=false on pg. 44
If a historical Moses existed but had nothing to do with the Exodus story, my point still very much stands.
To the contrary there probably was a historical Moses figure regarded initially as the progenitor of the Mushite priestly clan in the later Bronze age which eventually got assimilated into wider Israelite society.
Even if that's true, that Moses certainly never led a slave revolt against the Pharoah. If he (or anyone else had) it would've been recorded in the histories by scribes. Obviously the red sea parting would've been mentioned too.
Doesn't matter, there is a historical kernel to the Exodus narrative, however small it may be. We know that southern nomadic groups began migrating into Canaan just before and after the Bronze Age Collapse and somehow their stories about that migration somehow consolidated into a legendary exodus epic by competing priestly groups in Israelite society.
Kind of moving the goalposts aren't we?
I'm just delineating facts to you to dispel your misconceptions on the state of current academic scholarship.
This is a good book on the origin of Yahweh https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/24742
That does make sense, because as it states in the Bible, Canaanites existed in the land and were pagan, and then the Israelites came and defeated them in war, displacing them, destroying the temples along with them. That only further proves the validity of what is written in the book of Joshua and Judges.
Also compare the Ugaritic Ba'al Cycle to the Old Testament's descriptions of YHVH. There are too many direct similarities to be pure coincidence.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43075262
>expecting a sincere argument from people who are paid to lie and deceive
lol
Really pathetic response
Canaanites come from the line of Canaan, which was one of the sons of Ham. Abraham comes from the line of Japheth. Your connection is wholly inaccurate in terms of genealogy.
It's proto-Arabic from pre-Arabian Sinai. The Bible is a historical document with historical significance and strongly suggests that this is the case. An inscription from Amunhotep III’s temple in Soleb in Nubia from the 14th century BC further supports this, referring that land by the toponym "YEHWA". If you know anything about toponyms at that time, you know that they're often the name of a land, the people that inhabit it, and of their chief diety.
The shasu
Unknown, this deity probably originated in north-western Arabia/lower Transjordan region corresponding to the Biblical Midian-Edom-Seir locations.
The original form of the name didn't include the final hei consonant but was added in by the redactors of the Tanakh for also unknown reasons but probably related to making the name more holy (hence why Abram becomes Abraham, why Sarai becomes Sarah).
The Pentateuch derives the name from the tri-root hei yod hei or hei vav hei, but it's thought by many Tanakh scholars that this is a folk etymology or a deliberate alteration for theological purposes.
One of the more probable hypotheses is that it instead comes from the tri-root hei, vav, yod which would make a lot of sense; both the Biblical and the latter are forms of the verb "to be" but if we take the Midianite hypothesis seriously the former seems to represent a later Aramaism while the latter corresponds more closely to the Arabic cognate which means something like "to pitch downward", "to exert yourself forward", and recognizing that the earliest version of this deity was associated with storms and deluges the original meaning of the name could've been something like "he who blows".
This is just a hypothesis though, one of the more widely accepted hypotheses among the origin of the tetragrammaton but still just a hypothesis so take it with a grain of salt.
Its just a memory fragment that managed to come down through history. The only real God on earth is what was revealed by the Christ by resurrection and ascendance of the blood of God in the flesh again to its rightful place as the one true God on earth that has ever been.
It's important to note that, according to the Bible, YHWH was not the name of a new god, it was a new name for an old god (El Shaddai, or El of the Mountains/Plains) who was already worshipped by pagans in that part of the Levant.
See
That tracks.
Yes, He was worshiped by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because He always existed.
The Bible is historical evidence.
The earliest occurance of YHWH is "Shasu (Edomite or Midianite) in land of YHW" in Egyptian records. The Egyptian Book of Dead contains phrase "Adonae Roe'Yah" which means "My Lord is Shepherd of (land of) Yah". Yah in Egyptian means Donkey, the animal of Seth, god of Hyksos. Deutronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3 associates YHWH with a specific geographic location (Edom). Similar theme appears in Kuntullet Ajrud inscription where it says "Yahweh of Teman" and "Yahweh of Seir".
Edom means red and Seth was the lord of the red land (desert) as opposed to the black land (fertile soil). Join the dots.
If donkeys are red, then why are the democrats blue?
Seth isn't a donkey tho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_animal
Are you that brazilian spammer from /misc/?
>For example, the Moabites worshipped the god Chemosh, the Edomites, Qaus, both of whom were part of the greater Canaanite pantheon, headed by the chief god, El. The Canaanite pantheon consisted of El and Asherah as the chief deities, with 70 sons who were said to rule over each of the nations of the earth. These sons were each worshiped within a specific region. Kurt Noll states that "the Bible preserves a tradition that Yahweh used to 'live' in the south, in the land of Edom" and that the original god of Israel was El Shaddai.[31]
never heard of El Shaddai
YHWH, or יהוה, which consists of 3 consonants. Yod ( י ), He ה and Waw ו
The meaning of Yod is special. However, He and Waw aremuch easier to figure out.
He shows a jubilant individual and Wav shows a hook. But Wav originates from the Pharoah's crook (sheparding tool). From this, we surmise that the name YHWH somehow relates to jubilation and the act of herding people. However, jubilation occurs TWICE in the name YHWH, and from this we know the Hebrew God's name denotes two different purposes.
what does YHWH mean? It represents TWO tribes - one blessed by this god (the hand - Israelites) and the other shepherded, or turned to sheep by this god (the hook).
I read the source for it being a late theological gloss, and there isn't any real support. Maybe I'm missing something, but it comes off as head canon. It's literally just a guy saying it's more probable which is speculation.
There may not be enough certainty on the pronunciation of the sacred name but there is enough knowledge on the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew to know how to better render theophoric names derived from it along with others.
Isaiah/Esaias = Yashayah(u)
Jehoiakim/Joachim = Yohoyaqim
Jehoram/Joram = Yohoram
Jehoshaphat/Josaphat = Yohoshafat
Jeremiah/Jeremias = Yirmiyah(u)
Joshua = Yohoshua
Judah = Yuhudah