EPTGod HAD a wife - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
PizzaHash
Netherlands76 Posts
| ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
More specifically, on the topic of God's wife, what it says at bottom is that in the earliest forms of worship, as far as the research is concerned, the practice used to involve BOTH YHWH and Asherah. The metaphysical "existence" of God and his/her gender is beside the point. The text is plain English how can some people misread that. Now, politics in the handling of religious text eventually purged it of Asherah, which in its remnant forms is either "one of the minor gods of the Canaanites" or a tree, or a pole (all logically a product of the purging previously stated). It is a scientific study for a scientific peer reviewed journal. It cares little whether God exists or what God's gender is, or how we should go about our religious practice. Its reading comprehension at its most basic level. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 24 2011 00:24 Slow Motion wrote: Sorry I think I'm not being clear with my point. As I read it, the article seems to be arguing that the ancient Israelites worshiped a goddess as a PART of their worship of Yahweh. The Bible seems to tell the story of ancient Israelites worshiping other gods as in believing in a separate religion. Whereas the article seems to suggest that polytheism and worshiping a female goddess alongside a male god was initially very much a feature of the original Judaism. I was just responding to the other point earlier that there was no motive to edit the Bible. And since the Bible was written by people, I think it's relevant to discuss the writing of it, and if there were choices to leave things out in the writing. Merely because I Include Elements of Religion #1 in Religion#2 doesn't mean that Relgion#1 IS Religion#2. To prove the "God had a Wife" you would have to prove that there was No "Yahweh only" worship until after there was "Yahweh+Asherah" worship. The fact that some poeple worshipped both is not particularly surprising (can bee seen in the spread of any of the major world religions... as they spread some people take some things from it and add it to other beliefs... that doesn't mean their belief is "christianity" or "islam" if other forms of christianity or islam condemn that belief.) | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
eh? it was a double post..lol your point? sry i didnt mention the dbl post on my edit | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On March 24 2011 00:39 Krikkitone wrote: Merely because I Include Elements of Religion #1 in Religion#2 doesn't mean that Relgion#1 IS Religion#2. To prove the "God had a Wife" you would have to prove that there was No "Yahweh only" worship until after there was "Yahweh+Asherah" worship. The fact that some poeple worshipped both is not particularly surprising (can bee seen in the spread of any of the major world religions... as they spread some people take some things from it and add it to other beliefs... that doesn't mean their belief is "christianity" or "islam" if other forms of christianity or islam condemn that belief.) Yeah you're definitely right. I also think it's entirely possible that there was "Yahweh only" worship either before or alongside "Yahweh+Asherah" worship. Either way I have no idea cause I've never researched the issue. I just think that the possibility and argument made in the article, which seems to be the "No "Yahweh only" worship until after there was "Yahweh+Asherah" worship" argument, is interesting. I have no feelings on its historical validity either way though. I just think people are misconstruing the argument when they say that the Bible already admits to their being worship and other gods and that this argument is nothing new. In fact your statement that "To prove the "God had a Wife" you would have to prove that there was No "Yahweh only" worship until after there was "Yahweh+Asherah" worship" is a perfect summary of what I feel is what the person in the article is trying to prove (whether convincingly or not). | ||
|
popzags
Poland604 Posts
On March 24 2011 00:41 thoradycus wrote: eh? it was a double post..lol your point? My point is that in a thread like this, an edit like yours perfectly adresses the OP. | ||
|
Atheros
United States84 Posts
| ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On March 24 2011 00:58 Atheros wrote: The historian who wrote this article has obviously not read the old testament. In several of the books including judges and kings there are times when the Israelites stop worshiping God and start worshiping the gods of there neighbors, when they where in one of these phases they would often put idols from other religions in their temple. The two main god's they turn to are Baal and Asherah. Asherah was not an Israeli deity but a deity of the Canaanites who lived nearby. Whenever there was a new judge in the book of judges it would always talk about them destroying the alters of Baal and cutting down the Asherah poles. I don't think you've read much of the thread, as all of this has been repeatedly raised and dealt with. I'm extremely confident that the historian who wrote this article knows far more about the old testament and the historical criticism associated with it than you do. Edit: I mean the historians who did the research discussed in the article, not the journalist who wrote the article. | ||
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
| ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6566 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:22 Alejandrisha wrote: who GIVES a shit. not me. what is the point of trying to "discover" whether or not an influential story book character had a wife To quote Bart Ehrman: "This kind of information is relevant not only to scholars like me, who devote their lives to serious research, but also to everyone who is interested in the Bible -- whether they personally consider themselves believers or not. In my opinion this really matters. Whether you are a believer -- fundamentalist, evangelical, moderate, liberal -- or a nonbeliever, the Bible is the most significant book in the history of our civilization. Coming to understand what it actually is, and is not, is one of the most important intellectual endeavors that anyone in our society can embark upon." | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:55 Igakusei wrote: It's pretty clear to me that many of the ancient Israelites were polytheists, up to and including their leaders. It's apparent from much of the language of this part of the OT that YHWH was simply Israel's god of choice. There's some controversy over whether El (the Caananite god that Abraham made his pact with) and YHWH (the god that delivered the Israelites from Egypt) were the same entity, and it appears that this connection was made by later authors. The early Israelites were aware of and believed in a pantheon of gods, and the idea that YHWH was the only god appears to have not been present before the Babylonian captivity. There is a lot of linguistic evidence in the Bible for this. Got any citations on this matter? I mean you are implying that there were some heavy edits done to Exodus and other books if this was the case and I'd like to see some nice evidence on this matter :O | ||
|
RiotSpectre
United States163 Posts
| ||
|
hadoken5
Canada519 Posts
On March 23 2011 11:57 FinestHour wrote: I don't really get where OP is trying to go with this either... In every other news thread people seem to talk about the OP, if you post about religion people end up talking about it, there is NO WAY you can avoid "offending" someone. So, because TL is awesome in the sense that they don't want to offend someone's beliefs regardless of how ridiculous they are(unless it is on SC) they close the threads. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6566 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:24 Igakusei wrote: To quote Bart Ehrman: "This kind of information is relevant not only to scholars like me, who devote their lives to serious research, but also to everyone who is interested in the Bible -- whether they personally consider themselves believers or not. In my opinion this really matters. Whether you are a believer -- fundamentalist, evangelical, moderate, liberal -- or a nonbeliever, the Bible is the most significant book in the history of our civilization. Coming to understand what it actually is, and is not, is one of the most important intellectual endeavors that anyone in our society can embark upon." I understand that religion is a huge facet of American culture but honestly I don't think a small tweak of the lore of Christianity would really have an affect on religion. I don't think it changes anything either way | ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:24 Igakusei wrote: To quote Bart Ehrman: "This kind of information is relevant not only to scholars like me, who devote their lives to serious research, but also to everyone who is interested in the Bible -- whether they personally consider themselves believers or not. In my opinion this really matters. Whether you are a believer -- fundamentalist, evangelical, moderate, liberal -- or a nonbeliever, the Bible is the most significant book in the history of our civilization. Coming to understand what it actually is, and is not, is one of the most important intellectual endeavors that anyone in our society can embark upon." I think we're all familiar with the interesting phenomenon that atheists and agnostics are actually more knowledgeable about the Bible than actual believers, namely because believers go to church on Sunday, listen to their pastor, and leave, forgetting everything they heard before they walk out the door. But I agree. Knowledge of the Bible is of extreme importance if you breathe, walk, and talk in the Western world. | ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:48 .Aar wrote: The Catholics change their beliefs around every couple of years anyway, so I'm not too surprised. Heliocentric galaxy? Married priests? Female deacons? Sports? Harry freaking Potter and Pokemon HAHAHA. Best one yet! I dont get the sports and pokemon though... | ||
|
Redunzl
862 Posts
Actually, Kierkegaard owns Kant in terms of theology. See his The Concept of Anxiety for exposition of humanity, the fall, qualitative leaps and authentic existence. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:27 Milkis wrote: Got any citations on this matter? I mean you are implying that there were some heavy edits done to Exodus and other books if this was the case and I'd like to see some nice evidence on this matter :O He is only talking about the "documentary hypothesis" which was a commonly accepted theory on the origins of the Pentateuch. It is a fact that the "Books of Moses" are heavily revised. Hell, Deuteronomy didn't even exist until the reign of King Josiah. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/L4Vvv.png) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis | ||
|
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:55 Redunzl wrote: sick interpretation in the OP and Kant reference. Actually, Kierkegaard owns Kant in terms of theology. See his The Concept of Anxiety for exposition of humanity, the fall, qualitative leaps and authentic existence. Ahh, But Keirkegaard is a little less grounded for me. I had a field day with Kierkegaard in college with the attendant anxiety and angst. But yes, no one articulates existentialism and phenomenology better than him. I find Fromm's existentialism more radical and dynamic though. | ||
| ||
