Excerpt for Metacrock's comments

[Metacrock]

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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]


i don't believe that's a valid translation. that's why it's important to know the source. Jesus myther have blantenly lied about things like that.

[doxaws]

testing

[Metacrock]

Tiny I doubt the authenticity of that passage.that's I need to know the source.


here is a translation of the LXX I foun don line:


8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance. 10 He maintained him in the wilderness, in burning thirst and a dry land: he led him about and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of an eye. 11 As an eagle would watch over his brood, and yearns over his young, receives them having spread his wings, and takes them up on his back: 12 the Lord alone led them, there was no strange god with them. 13 He brought them up on the strength of the land; he fed them with the fruits of the fields; they sucked honey out of the rock, and oil out of the solid rock. 14 Butter of cows, and milk of sheep, with the fat of lambs and rams, of calves and kids, with fat of kidneys of wheat; and he drank wine, the blood of the grape. 15 So Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he grew fat, he became thick and broad: then he forsook the God that made him, and departed from God his Saviour.


see it does not read the same. that problem is not there. Is it covered up? Or is it made up by your source?

I will do further investigation.


url to trans

http://christianmedia.us/LXXE/deuteronomy.html


The Septuagint LXX in English
by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton

Published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851

[tinythinker]

Tiny I doubt the authenticity of that passage.that's I need to know the source.


here is a translation of the LXX I foun don line:


8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance. 10 He maintained him in the wilderness, in burning thirst and a dry land: he led him about and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of an eye. 11 As an eagle would watch over his brood, and yearns over his young, receives them having spread his wings, and takes them up on his back: 12 the Lord alone led them, there was no strange god with them. 13 He brought them up on the strength of the land; he fed them with the fruits of the fields; they sucked honey out of the rock, and oil out of the solid rock. 14 Butter of cows, and milk of sheep, with the fat of lambs and rams, of calves and kids, with fat of kidneys of wheat; and he drank wine, the blood of the grape. 15 So Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he grew fat, he became thick and broad: then he forsook the God that made him, and departed from God his Saviour.


see it does not read the same. that problem is not there. Is it covered up? Or is it made up by your source?

I will do further investigation.


url to trans

http://christianmedia.us/LXXE/deuteronomy.html


The Septuagint LXX in English
by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton

Published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851

Oh, I see. Well, the passage I quoted wasn't posted part of a discussion about religion or atheism, it was a reply on a blog about politics by someone upset with a really horrible statement by a far-right Christian leader. There is no other information or context from that source other than citing "the Septuagint" and the "Dead Sea Scrolls."

[Metacrock]

Tiny I doubt the authenticity of that passage.that's I need to know the source.


here is a translation of the LXX I foun don line:


8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. 9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance. 10 He maintained him in the wilderness, in burning thirst and a dry land: he led him about and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of an eye. 11 As an eagle would watch over his brood, and yearns over his young, receives them having spread his wings, and takes them up on his back: 12 the Lord alone led them, there was no strange god with them. 13 He brought them up on the strength of the land; he fed them with the fruits of the fields; they sucked honey out of the rock, and oil out of the solid rock. 14 Butter of cows, and milk of sheep, with the fat of lambs and rams, of calves and kids, with fat of kidneys of wheat; and he drank wine, the blood of the grape. 15 So Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he grew fat, he became thick and broad: then he forsook the God that made him, and departed from God his Saviour.


see it does not read the same. that problem is not there. Is it covered up? Or is it made up by your source?

I will do further investigation.


url to trans

http://christianmedia.us/LXXE/deuteronomy.html


The Septuagint LXX in English
by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton

Published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851

Oh, I see. Well, the passage I quoted wasn't posted part of a discussion about religion or atheism, it was a reply on a blog about politics by someone upset with a really horrible statement by a far-right Christian leader. There is no other information or context from that source other than citing "the Septuagint" and the "Dead Sea Scrolls."

that says it all. I've been arguing with conservative Chrsitians about politics on carm and that's really depressing.

[Metacrock]

what would be the big deal about that anyway? I mean you know that I don't' hold to inerrency and I'm willing to accept that there are mythological and pagan influences in various aspects of it.

that bit bout the sons of God and the daughters of men is a hold over from a pagan writing. What's the problem?

I checked another online reading of the LXX it says Adams sons but it does mention "divine sons" but does not say El and Y as father and son but God (?) and Adam and Adam's divine sons.

[tinythinker]

what would be the big deal about that anyway? I mean you know that I don't' hold to inerrency and I'm willing to accept that there are mythological and pagan influences in various aspects of it.

that bit bout the sons of God and the daughters of men is a hold over from a pagan writing. What's the problem?

I checked another online reading of the LXX it says Adams sons but it does mention "divine sons" but does not say El and Y as father and son but God (?) and Adam and Adam's divine sons.

I figured that was going to be your initial reply -- that it was just another case of the Hebrew trying to fit in by adopting local ideas. After all, polytheistic systems such as those of the people surrounding ancient Israel are notorious for trying to fit/accommodate other beliefs into their own. And if the Bible is a progressive revelation then it wouldn't matter anyway.

[Metacrock]

what would be the big deal about that anyway? I mean you know that I don't' hold to inerrency and I'm willing to accept that there are mythological and pagan influences in various aspects of it.

that bit bout the sons of God and the daughters of men is a hold over from a pagan writing. What's the problem?

I checked another online reading of the LXX it says Adams sons but it does mention "divine sons" but does not say El and Y as father and son but God (?) and Adam and Adam's divine sons.

I figured that was going to be your initial reply -- that it was just another case of the Hebrew trying to fit in by adopting local ideas. After all, polytheistic systems such as those of the people surrounding ancient Israel are notorious for trying to fit/accommodate other beliefs into their own. And if the Bible is a progressive revelation then it wouldn't matter anyway.

Not just trying to fit in but that they did not have those ideas or a word for them until they met another culture.

My theory about the Hebrews, they are seen by modern liberal scholars as Canaanites. They not accepted as the children of a guy named Abraham and salves in Egypt that's all seen as mythology. I can't accept that because they are so attached to it. Why a foreign mythology that places their father and their origin in a foreign setting and makes them slaves?

Some scholars seem them as an admixture of contingents from Egyptian slavery, the Median desert and Canaan. That is consistent with what the Bible tells us. It says that Israel took in a large portion Canaanites and Jethro Moses father-in-law was Mennonite so he no doubt brought in servants, children, friends and other people from this tribe, his whole tribe even.

Now I'm not saying those personalities or circumstances had to be literal. The archaeological record shows that there is no real evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan and it looks like it was made up represents developments that don't even match the chronology of the bible. So it was probably made up in the exile.

Yet becasue the elements of Egypt and having been slaves are so strong it seems that perhaps an amalgam of some kind existed which brought together these diverse people. So the Canaanite faction would bring in these Canaanite deity names and terms.

Under this theory they used belief in one god as a unifying force for their desperate elements. That's a naturalistic refutation of the spiritual aspects of their origins. Yet one wonder why that any more than what 19th century scholars used to say, that it was the Egyptian monotheism of sun worship that gave them the idea of one God. Then there's the Mideonite factor. Moses encounter in the desert was during his Mideonite period and the mountain upon which he experienced the burning bush was the Medionite sacred mountain.

That's really two of the three sources of Hebrew origin that would bring in Monotheism, those from Egypt and those from Median. Of course why couldn't it be the other way, that Hebew slaves affected the Egyptian sun worshiper?