- Yahweh doesn’t appear in the historical record until at least 2000 years after the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian god, and started out as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief god El, [who] gave Israel to his son Yahweh for his inheritance...
Heck, even a proper translation of Deut 32:8-9 (as in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals that fact:
When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons:
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
Moderator:Metacrock
- tinythinker
- Posts:1331
- Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm
Saw this and thought it sounded like something you would have a thought or two about...
Adrift in the endless river
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
What was this person's evidence? We know that the Israelites called their God El and YHWH. The Canaanites did have a story about El, the father of the gods; but they were polytheists, not monotheists like the YHWHists and Elohists of Israel. (I guess it's more complicated than what I know. Psalm 82, for example, has God addressing a council of gods, yet he is clearly judging them as the one true God. He says they will die, he calls them unjust, and so on.)tinythinker wrote:Yahweh doesn’t appear in the historical record until at least 2000 years after the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian god[s], and started out as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief god El, [who] gave Israel to his son Yahweh for his inheritance...
Why would this person consider the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls to be "proper" translations, or the only reliable manuscripts?Heck, even a proper translation of Deut 32:8-9 (as in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals that fact:
In the ESV, it says, "But the LORD's inheritance is his people"--the conjunction is even more dramatic. I'm not sure how to interpret the "divine sons" line. The Biblegateway version of the ESV says that the Most High fixed the boundaries of the peoples (i.e. the Gentiles?) according to the number of Israel. Verses 9ff. discuss the LORD's selection of "Jacob," or Israel, his chosen people. And in verse 6, "the LORD" is said to have created and fathered the people of Israel. Idk. It's possible that El created YHWH and then gave him some minor, less-than-Most-High creative power, but I see the monotheistic explanation as the more sensible. Then again, I'm biased. ... My two or three unlearned cents. The guy is going to need to do better than appeal to Deut. 32:8-9 for his entire case. Deut. 8:14 identifies the LORD with El, for example. Blah blah....When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons:
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
- tinythinker
- Posts:1331
- Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
So you are assuming LORD must always refer in the Bible to what we now think of as the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God? Kind of begs the question, especially then when YHWH is receiving an inheritance. An inheritance? From whom? Who would the one and only true GOD be receiving an inheritance from? In a patrilineal society that would come from your father, suggesting YHWH was indeed the son of a separate being. The fact that Deut. 8:14 identifies the LORD with El would support the idea that El is the actual high god (a la Odin, or Zeus, etc) and YHWH (a regular god/child of the high god) was allowed to create and rule over his people (the Hebrew) as a gift from dad. Just because some translations "smooth over" the passage isn't any better. The individual was not making a whole argument, but referring to a particular point.Gwarlroge wrote:What was this person's evidence? We know that the Israelites called their God El and YHWH. The Canaanites did have a story about El, the father of the gods; but they were polytheists, not monotheists like the YHWHists and Elohists of Israel. (I guess it's more complicated than what I know. Psalm 82, for example, has God addressing a council of gods, yet he is clearly judging them as the one true God. He says they will die, he calls them unjust, and so on.)tinythinker wrote:Yahweh doesn’t appear in the historical record until at least 2000 years after the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian god[s], and started out as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief god El, [who] gave Israel to his son Yahweh for his inheritance...
Why would this person consider the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls to be "proper" translations, or the only reliable manuscripts?Heck, even a proper translation of Deut 32:8-9 (as in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals that fact:
In the ESV, it says, "But the LORD's inheritance is his people"--the conjunction is even more dramatic. I'm not sure how to interpret the "divine sons" line. The Biblegateway version of the ESV says that the Most High fixed the boundaries of the peoples (i.e. the Gentiles?) according to the number of Israel. Verses 9ff. discuss the LORD's selection of "Jacob," or Israel, his chosen people. And in verse 6, "the LORD" is said to have created and fathered the people of Israel. Idk. It's possible that El created YHWH and then gave him some minor, less-than-Most-High creative power, but I see the monotheistic explanation as the more sensible. Then again, I'm biased. ... My two or three unlearned cents. The guy is going to need to do better than appeal to Deut. 32:8-9 for his entire case. Deut. 8:14 identifies the LORD with El, for example. Blah blah....When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons:
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
That ought to to wet Meta's appetite
Adrift in the endless river
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
tinythinker wrote:Saw this and thought it sounded like something you would have a thought or two about...
- Yahweh doesn’t appear in the historical record until at least 2000 years after the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian god, and started out as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief god El, [who] gave Israel to his son Yahweh for his inheritance...
Heck, even a proper translation of Deut 32:8-9 (as in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals that fact:
When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons:
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
where is that from? It sounds like a Jesus myther book. one thing these guys don't think it through. What were Jews doing bewteen the exodus, which was suppossedly about 1400 BC and the time Jesus, 1400 years latter presumably? why did those years all of which the Jews passed with thier won faith and their own religion, somehow secret by osmosis the idea that God's son would be Jesus (Yeshua)? Where they saying "O now remember, God's son is really Jesus, but we wont talk about that for another 300 years now").
Of course they used the name Y, No EL, for God and prophesies in the OT said the Messiah (not God's son but Messiah) would be Yeshua meaning Y is salvation, which has nothing to with that Egyptian myth. The term "son of God" as a euphemism for Messiah is a slang that developed since the exile, it was not part of the prophesies of Zachariah or Isaiah. The link to the name comes Zacaraiah and points to the high preist of that time whose hame was Jasua (Jesus, Yeshua).
that source you quote seem to be by someone who didn't know any of this. Someone who thinks Messiah was always supposed to be literally God's son. It is true that the Hebrews barrowed a name form the Pagans, the Cananites, El, to designate God, but that doesn't mean they took on the whole of El's mythology. The name means something generic like "god" it's just a word because they didn't have one. Remember God told Moses his name was "I am" and they tried not ot pronounce it. He had a secret name they weren't supposed to really know it.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
tinythinker wrote:So you are assuming LORD must always refer in the Bible to what we now think of as the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God? Kind of begs the question, especially then when YHWH is receiving an inheritance. An inheritance? From whom? Who would the one and only true GOD be receiving an inheritance from? In a patrilineal society that would come from your father, suggesting YHWH was indeed the son of a separate being. The fact that Deut. 8:14 identifies the LORD with El would support the idea that El is the actual high god (a la Odin, or Zeus, etc) and YHWH (a regular god/child of the high god) was allowed to create and rule over his people (the Hebrew) as a gift from dad. Just because some translations "smooth over" the passage isn't any better. The individual was not making a whole argument, but referring to a particular point.Gwarlroge wrote:What was this person's evidence? We know that the Israelites called their God El and YHWH. The Canaanites did have a story about El, the father of the gods; but they were polytheists, not monotheists like the YHWHists and Elohists of Israel. (I guess it's more complicated than what I know. Psalm 82, for example, has God addressing a council of gods, yet he is clearly judging them as the one true God. He says they will die, he calls them unjust, and so on.)tinythinker wrote:Yahweh doesn’t appear in the historical record until at least 2000 years after the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian god[s], and started out as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief god El, [who] gave Israel to his son Yahweh for his inheritance...
Why would this person consider the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls to be "proper" translations, or the only reliable manuscripts?Heck, even a proper translation of Deut 32:8-9 (as in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals that fact:
In the ESV, it says, "But the LORD's inheritance is his people"--the conjunction is even more dramatic. I'm not sure how to interpret the "divine sons" line. The Biblegateway version of the ESV says that the Most High fixed the boundaries of the peoples (i.e. the Gentiles?) according to the number of Israel. Verses 9ff. discuss the LORD's selection of "Jacob," or Israel, his chosen people. And in verse 6, "the LORD" is said to have created and fathered the people of Israel. Idk. It's possible that El created YHWH and then gave him some minor, less-than-Most-High creative power, but I see the monotheistic explanation as the more sensible. Then again, I'm biased. ... My two or three unlearned cents. The guy is going to need to do better than appeal to Deut. 32:8-9 for his entire case. Deut. 8:14 identifies the LORD with El, for example. Blah blah....When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons:
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
That ought to to wet Meta's appetite
the thing about names all those gods names mean stuff like "god" and "sky father." Even Jupiter means sky father, zu = sky in indo ayrion and Potier = father in Greek.
Jupiter is corruption o Zu Potier. Zues means something like "sky man."
Tillich says cultures develop mythologies of God and they develop socially. Philosophers develop an understanding of being. The ideas of the Gods grow more lofty they move form a level of guardian of the tribe and sky father and king maker to guardian of justice and representation of ideals. At some point the two link up, being iself and the concept of a transcendent God coincide. you have what began as a human idea of spirits inhabiting the forest and the home and needing to be placated evolving into the lofty transcendent notion of Being itself and Platonic forms because human understanding grows to a point where it touches a real spiritual reality and a true notion of transcendent reality is formed.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
I still want to know the original source, and how he dates the alleged Cananite myth.
I have a feeling that is totally made up. Jesus mythers have been known to do that.
I have a feeling that is totally made up. Jesus mythers have been known to do that.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
- MonolithTMA
- Posts:590
- Joined:Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:16 pm
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
Here's some similar info: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=7110
Peace,
Mike aka MonolithTMA
"The idea that the truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book is almost beyond imagination for me." -- John Shelby Spong
Mike aka MonolithTMA
"The idea that the truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book is almost beyond imagination for me." -- John Shelby Spong
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
tinythinker wrote:So you are assuming LORD must always refer in the Bible to what we now think of as the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God? Kind of begs the question, especially then when YHWH is receiving an inheritance.
Yes.
An inheritance? From whom? Who would the one and only true GOD be receiving an inheritance from? In a patrilineal society that would come from your father, suggesting YHWH was indeed the son of a separate being.
True. I guess that's the difficulty, eh?
Why would "the LORD [=] God" suggest that YHWH could be a child of El?The fact that Deut. 8:14 identifies the LORD with El would support the idea that El is the actual high god (a la Odin, or Zeus, etc) and YHWH (a regular god/child of the high god) was allowed to create and rule over his people (the Hebrew) as a gift from dad.
I didn't think the ESV was smoothing it over. I just picked the ESV because it's supposed to be more of a "formally equivalent" (or literal) translation.Just because some translations "smooth over" the passage isn't any better. The individual was not making a whole argument, but referring to a particular point.
As for the person's making an argument or not...yep, I guess I just got impetuous.
- tinythinker
- Posts:1331
- Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
I don't think a non-specialist would follow exactly how your reply counters the original statement in a step-by-step fashion. For example, how does calling the one true God "El" square with also calling God YHWH when the passage appears to imply that El is giving YHWH an inheritance? Why use two separate names for the same being in the same passage and why would he be giving himself an inheritance?Metacrock wrote:tinythinker wrote:Saw this and thought it sounded like something you would have a thought or two about...
- Yahweh doesn’t appear in the historical record until at least 2000 years after the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian god, and started out as one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite chief god El, [who] gave Israel to his son Yahweh for his inheritance...
Heck, even a proper translation of Deut 32:8-9 (as in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) reveals that fact:
When the Most High (Elyon) allotted peoples for inheritance,
When He divided up humanity,
He fixed the boundaries for peoples,
According to the number of the divine sons:
For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
Jacob His own inheritance.
where is that from? It sounds like a Jesus myther book. one thing these guys don't think it through. What were Jews doing bewteen the exodus, which was suppossedly about 1400 BC and the time Jesus, 1400 years latter presumably? why did those years all of which the Jews passed with thier won faith and their own religion, somehow secret by osmosis the idea that God's son would be Jesus (Yeshua)? Where they saying "O now remember, God's son is really Jesus, but we wont talk about that for another 300 years now").
Of course they used the name Y, No EL, for God and prophesies in the OT said the Messiah (not God's son but Messiah) would be Yeshua meaning Y is salvation, which has nothing to with that Egyptian myth. The term "son of God" as a euphemism for Messiah is a slang that developed since the exile, it was not part of the prophesies of Zachariah or Isaiah. The link to the name comes Zacaraiah and points to the high preist of that time whose hame was Jasua (Jesus, Yeshua).
that source you quote seem to be by someone who didn't know any of this. Someone who thinks Messiah was always supposed to be literally God's son. It is true that the Hebrews barrowed a name form the Pagans, the Cananites, El, to designate God, but that doesn't mean they took on the whole of El's mythology. The name means something generic like "god" it's just a word because they didn't have one. Remember God told Moses his name was "I am" and they tried not ot pronounce it. He had a secret name they weren't supposed to really know it.
Adrift in the endless river
Re: Excerpt for Metacrock's comments
testing
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief