Jehovah

[JulesMaximus]

Freaks.

 

[KarenMarie]

As far as I know... some people call their God Jehovah.

And while I do not subscribe to their beliefs... whatever they wanna do.

 

[ThePresence]

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

 

[Mucho]

An ATOT regular.

 

[bootymac]

"WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THIS PAMPLET?"

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dderidex
And that YHWH was originally merely one of many pagan gods - in fact, a sky god (a god of thunder and lightning). He was called by enemies of Israel 'a god of the hills'. Once ancient Israel sufficiently conquered their neighboring tribes, they took to re-writing their history, and setting YHWH up as a single deity.

I'd like to see links to back up your "facts" here please. The word for "god" in ancient Hebrew was "El". "Elohim" is not the plural for "El", but means "the many that think/act as one." YHWH means a singular god -- the unchanging, eternal, self-existent God, the Exodus 3:14 "I am that I am" (but that "am", the "to be" verb, could be past, present, or future tense) -- similar to the Arabic word Allah. It cannot exist in plurality.

It is true that the word Jehovah has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

No, you are missing the point of the comment.

The 'nation of Israel' was not, in fact, a seperate ethnicity that moved into the region.

The many tribes in the area (in the bible grouped together as the 'Tribes of Canaan') all worshipped different gods each - some many gods. One of the Canaanite tribes worshipped a god called El (I don't know where you get that this is a generic word for *A* god - it was, in fact, the specific name of one of the Canaanite gods, as was Ba'al and YHWH), various other tribes worshipped other gods for various reasons, etc. The group that would become "the nation of Israel" was just one of the Canaanite tribes. (EDIT: At least, that's the best theory I've seen. All that is known for sure is that a group who identified themselves as Hebrews began monotheistic worship and good, solid recordkeeping in this region around the 7th century BCE. The 'Old Testament', of course, records from FAR before that point in time, but most of what it says prior to that point is either unlikely out outright provably incorrect. Some modern scholars have hypothesized that the Hebrews where, in fact, an offshoot of the Hyksos that occupied much of the Middle East prior to this time period, but....that seems rather unlikely to me, anyway)

I just did a quick Google and came up with:

YHWH AL: 'YHWH' was simply part of the Canaanite pantheon. He was a Son of 'AL' ("El"); and he was part of the court of 'AL' ("El") as cupbearer along with Baal. Later, as the National "God" of 'YSHRAL' (Israel), 'YHWH' was equated with 'AL' ("El"), and Asherah became His wife.

Linkage

Any honest scholar will have the same answer - the only people who disagree are (understandably), the Jewish religion and those directly spun off it it - since their entire teachings are based on the false (re-written) history of Israel.

This site quotes from a NUMBER of books:

"Yahweh appears to have been originally a sky god - a god of thunder and lightning. He was associated with mountains and was called by the enemies of Israel 'a god of the hills'. His manifestation was often as fire, as at Mount Sinai and in the burning bush."
"A shorter form, 'Yah', was also used (Exodus 15:2) and some scholars believe that this is the older form, originating in an exclamation to God - 'Yah!' - which came to be accepted as the divine name. Others claim that it is from the root 'hayah', 'to be' or 'to become', and that it meant 'I am that I am' or I will be that I will be'. According to one tradition of the call of Moses, the divine name Yahweh was revealed to him in Egypt:"
- Great Events of Bible Times

"Originally, these four consonants [in YHWH] represented the four members of the Heavenly Family: Y represented El the Father; H was Asherah the Mother; W corresponded to He the Son; and H was the Daughter Anath."
- Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, p. 18

"One of the earliest heroes from the time of the initial invasion was the warrior Jerubbaal who later changed his name to Gideon. (His original name was certainly Canaanite honoring the god Baal, which probably illustrates that at the time Yahweh was not as entrenched as the later authors of the Old Testament would like us to believe.)"
"For many, Yahweh was no more than the Israelite war god, useful in time of battle but a fairly lowly figure when viewed against the full pantheon of the gods. The names given to notable Israelites down the ages whose a strong respect for Baal, and even the most ardent Yahwist would not pretend that the Jews of this period believed in only one god."
- Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

I could go on and on.

Suffice to say - an archeological study of "Israel"'s history is VERY interesting as it deviates SUBSTANTIALLY from 'the written record' as told by the Old Testament.

 

[Vic]

Your sources there are hardly credible. And all they demonstrate is something that is known and spoken of extensively in the OT -- that paganism ("idolatry") occurred among the ancient Hebrews. Despite the spin, this does not mean that Yahweh was in the same religion (so to speak). That would be like saying that the unsanctioned practice of worshipping the Virgin Mary makes Catholicism a pagan religion. And "El" means "god" in the most generic way in ancient Hebrew. Not a specific way, just god. In Exodus 20:3, the passage is "Thou shalt have no other <elohim> before me."
Just 'cause you found it on the internet doesn't make it true.

 

[dderidex]

I think it's you who are confused, it's not "found on the internet" - dozens and dozens of books have been written on the topic. You only need to go into your local library!

Seriously, don't use the OT (since it was written by those with an obvious bias - never trust anyone to write their own history!) and just consult the archeological record and see what you come up with.

The history of the Hebrew people as posited by the Old Testament is simply not possible to merge with the unearthed history of the region. What EXACTLY the true history IS would be anyone's guess, but it's clearly not what was claimed, in any case.

EDIT: And I know the Hebrews took the name 'El' to be a generic god name, but that doesn't change the fact that BEFORE they started using it, it was already the proper noun name of a Canaanite god.

That'd be like me starting to call my car a 'satan' and all cars are just 'satans' - does that change the meaning of the word? Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that I took the word from another religion and tried to change the usage after the fact. The Hebrews did not make up the word 'El' or 'Elohim' - both were in general usage before they came on the scene.

EDIT #2: And I don't think you are following the timeline properly. When 'Yahweh' was just a 'lowly war god among a pantheon of gods', there was no identifiable 'Hebrew nation'. It was just all the Canaanite tribes (and whoever else was living in the area) worshipping a pantheon that included YHWH. It's not a case of a monotheistic group 'falling to idolatry' - you'll find that monotheism is a REMARKABLY modern concern.

EDIT #3: It'd REALLY do you some good in 'opening your eyes' to read some of the books by Prof. Herzog of the Tel Aviv University.

 

[sirspotti]

i know H to the izz-O...V to the izz-A. is that the same thing?

 

[Goosemaster]

Jay H.O.V.A ?

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: sonz70
It means people bugging me at my house during football :|

QFTFT (Quoted For The Fvcking Truth)

 

[Baked]

FFVII baby! Oh wait, that was Jenova.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: dderidex
EDIT #3: It'd REALLY do you some good in 'opening your eyes' to read some of the books by Prof. Herzog of the Tel Aviv University.

Since I doubt you'll bother to look it up, here is an article he wrote and a story on it.

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel,
archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the
Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer
the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon,
nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known
for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel:
the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the
land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps
even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon,
which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal
kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel,
Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism
only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who
are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and
the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to
corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of
the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm

(Yes, that links to an article at Cornell University. I don't know how much more 'proof' you need!)

 

[Vic]

I think it's you who are confused, it's not "found on the internet" - dozens and dozens of books have been written on the topic. You only need to go into your local library!

Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail

Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

:roll:

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Vic

I think it's you who are confused, it's not "found on the internet" - dozens and dozens of books have been written on the topic. You only need to go into your local library!

Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail

Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus

:roll:

So I only QUOTED two of them.

Forgive me, I made the mistake of believing you were actually interested in an honest discussion and could follow my points up with some research on your own. So sue me.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: exilera
Reminds me of Jehova's Witnesses, aka morons.

I wouldn't call them morons, but I would admit to finding them slightly irksome.

 

[ThePresence]

dderidex, it's hardly suprising that the professors and universities and scholarly books say that the bible is a book of fairy tales. I think that argument has been going on for a few hundred years.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
dderidex, it's hardly suprising that the professors and universities and scholarly books say that the bible is a book of fairy tales. I think that argument has been going on for a few hundred years.

Generally, the argument are against things in the pre-historic time period, though, that are 'difficult' to prove one way or the other.

We aren't GUESSING here, there is actual archeological research that has been done that proves various points in the OT history are false.

I mean, it's archeology! There isn't guessing here, people are merely replacing history written by those with a bias (again, never trust anyone to write their own history when they have an agenda and it isn't checked by an external source!) with history as discovered by digging things up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
dderidex, it's hardly suprising that the professors and universities and scholarly books say that the bible is a book of fairy tales. I think that argument has been going on for a few hundred years.

Let's not forget that these same professors like to teach children that socialism and communism are the greatest and most wonderful forms of government known to man, which in fact they are the most horrific and most destructive of human freedom.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: ThePresence
dderidex, it's hardly suprising that the professors and universities and scholarly books say that the bible is a book of fairy tales. I think that argument has been going on for a few hundred years.

Generally, the argument are against things in the pre-historic time period, though, that are 'difficult' to prove one way or the other.

We aren't GUESSING here, there is actual archeological research that has been done that proves various points in the OT history are false.

I mean, it's archeology! There isn't guessing here, people are merely replacing history written by those with a bias (again, never trust anyone to write their own history when they have an agenda and it isn't checked by an external source!) with history as discovered by digging things up.

Well, you're trusting a guy (Professor Herzog) who has more of a bias than anyone else to say that the bible is a book of lies. After all, he's Jewish, and if the bible is fact, he's in deep shite, isn't he?
But that's beside the point. I was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, I attended a Rabbinical Seminary for many years, I lived in Israel and actually participated in archeological projects there. You'd be very suprised at how much archeological proof there is FOR the bible. I'm not about to start pulling out books now and showing you proofs, because it'll be pointless. You'll believe what you'll believe and I'll believe what I will. But don't assume that professors and universities don't have a bias of their own. It's a 2-way street.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ThePresence
dderidex, it's hardly suprising that the professors and universities and scholarly books say that the bible is a book of fairy tales. I think that argument has been going on for a few hundred years.

Let's not forget that these same professors like to teach children that socialism and communism are the greatest and most wonderful forms of government known to man, which in fact they are the most horrific and most destructive of human freedom.

Man, you REALLY have a twisted view of the world, don't you?

I've gone to 2 different public schools, 12 years of public education followed by college, and NEVER even MET or HEARD OF a teacher who taught anything of the kind.

You sure you aren't just crazy or something? I mean, you are just making up ad hominem attacks now...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Generally, the argument are against things in the pre-historic time period, though, that are 'difficult' to prove one way or the other.

We aren't GUESSING here, there is actual archeological research that has been done that proves various points in the OT history are false.

I mean, it's archeology! There isn't guessing here, people are merely replacing history written by those with a bias (again, never trust anyone to write their own history when they have an agenda and it isn't checked by an external source!) with history as discovered by digging things up.

No, it's just replacing one bias with another bias. All the links you've pulled up have said is that evidence was not found therefore the bible must be false. That's hardly sound logic. The rest of the information is just confirmed with the bible, i.e. that Yahweh monotheistic worship was always in conflict with pagan polytheistic worship.
On that note, I've never found it logical this idea that polytheism was first. How could the concept of worshipping many gods possibly have come before the concept of just worshipping anything like a god at all? Did humans just spring from godlessness (not worshipping any gods) to polytheism (worshipping many gods) all at once? Of course not.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Vic
On that note, I've never found it logical this idea that polytheism was first. How could the concept of worshipping many gods possibly have come before the concept of just worshipping anything like a god at all? Did humans just spring from godlessness (not worshipping any gods) to polytheism (worshipping many gods) all at once? Of course not.

Dear, sweet, gods above, did you SLEEP through history class, man!?

What do you call the American Indians? They NEVER had a monotheistic point. Nor the druids. Nor the Asians. (Hell, the Asian countries STILL don't have monotheistic religions)

Religion springs from the need to explain things observed in nature. So, yes, mankind went from having no gods to believing that the day was controlled by A god and the night was controlled by ANOTHER god, and they fought. The harvest was controlled by A god, the weather was controlled by ANOTHER god, etc. The living had one god, the dead were ruled by ANOTHER god, etc.

I mean, for the love of...

Seriously, study Greek history, Roman history, study the history in Africa, etc.

The idea that there is only ONE god was first - FIRST - put forth by the Zoroastrians around 1700 BCE (roughly a millenia before 'the Hebrews' would become monotheistic) who worshipped the god Ahura Mazda.

Polytheism pre-dates monotheism in EVERY SINGLE CULTURE by many, MANY millenia.

Monotheism is an idea not even 4000 years old in human history (EDIT: my math is bad).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Man, you REALLY have a twisted view of the world, don't you?

I've gone to 2 different public schools, 12 years of public education followed by college, and NEVER even MET or HEARD OF a teacher who taught anything of the kind.

You sure you aren't just crazy or something? I mean, you are just making up ad hominem attacks now...

My father was a public school teacher and administrator for 35 years before retiring, not to mention my own experiences through the system. I know what they teach, thank you. If you individually were spared, that's just anecdotal. But then, you probably think the US is a capitalist country...

Seriously though, your sources are biased. I have read countless archeological studies that are in resounding favor of the Bible. Just as there are many that take the opposite tack.

btw, not all Jews are... (shall we say) Jewish. It's both an ethnicity and a religion. Those Jews who are not religious are frequently quite radicial about it, kind of like an ex-communicated Mormon. Just FYI.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Dear, sweet, gods above, did you SLEEP through history class, man!?

What do you call the American Indians? They NEVER had a monotheistic point. Nor the druids. Nor the Asians. (Hell, the Asian countries STILL don't have monotheistic religions)

Religion springs from the need to explain things observed in nature. So, yes, mankind went from having no gods to believing that the day was controlled by A god and the night was controlled by ANOTHER god, and they fought. The harvest was controlled by A god, the weather was controlled by ANOTHER god, etc. The living had one god, the dead were ruled by ANOTHER god, etc.

I mean, for the love of...

Seriously, study Greek history, Roman history, study the history in Africa, etc.

The idea that there is only ONE god was first - FIRST - put forth by the Zoroastrians around 1700 BCE (roughly a millenia before 'the Hebrews' would become monotheistic) who worshipped the god Ahura Mazda.

Polytheism pre-dates monotheism in EVERY SINGLE CULTURE by many, MANY millenia.

Monotheism is an idea not even 4000 years old in human history (EDIT: my math is bad).

You have done an absolutely amazing job of believing everything you were taught. Very commendable.

You missed the point entirely. How could humans have gone from godlessness to polytheism all at once without at first inventing the concept of a god in the first place? What you're saying is like saying that humans developed a written language without first stumbling through the symbology.

And I've studied this topic extensively. For your own reading, I would recommend Joseph Campbell -- typically factual, intelligent, and unbiased.