Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion

looks like you hit the wrong llgb. luckily, i'm checking these two threads fairly regularly and caught it. thank you! of course, be sure to check some more legitimate and informative primary sources, because i do have the tendency to sometimes talk out of my ass as it were. ALOT! for instance, there are volumes upon volumes of the talmud. that's all interpretation. there are midrashim, old and modern. there are whole traditions regarding the bible and spiritula ideas that are just nowhere to be found in or supported by the bible. the same is true of christian interprettation. but this is nothing abnormal -- religion is a big part of culture, and we're born storytellers.i'm sure you've heard the story of adam's apple? it's not in the bible, but we've known it since we were kids. much of the religion, and tradition is and will always be oral. the kicker is that these oral traditions are not distortions of the bible at all. rather, oral traditions naturally distort and evolve themselves -- the bible is an anthology that records very many traditions at different points in history, locking them down.that why there are different stories, contradictions, and repititions. genesis/exodus/numbers is an anthology composed of three sources that record to distinct versions of the traditions regarding origins of names, places, people, and their faith.the bible grew out of these human patterns of storytelling, not vice-versa. the "bic" types here would have us believe the other way around. but such a view faisl to account for the diversity, richness, and complicated intriciacy (read "contradictions") of the text.

---

oop, no, caught ya!

quote:

---

Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of Yahweh

---

this sounds like a good story. i wish it was in the bible, don't you? we have some simialr stuff -- men become wholely wicked to the extent that god feels the need to destroy them. presumably, that wickedness included polytheism, but there is no proof either way for that in the text. but god kills them all, leaving noach (presumably a monotheist) alone. but where does it go from there?if we follow the dueteronomy explanation, then maybe other countries adopt different gods about genesis 11, when the sons of noach are split up. but this is, at best, conjecture. albeit one that easily fits the text. right, but if we are supposing that people around were polytheists, they evidently knew of yahweh. starting with the sons of seth, people call on his name. (see above)yes, this contradicts the statement in exodus when god tells moses that the patriarchs didn't know his name. but that's not really my problem. (that bit occurs in the e-text. if you split apart e and j, "yahweh" is never once used in e until that point, when it is used consistently afterward. i know you don't buy this, but it's interesting information to those who take the bible for what it is) from the sounds of it, you've never taken an archaeology class, either.even for the complete athiest, the bible can have value, as a text of ancient writings. whether or not the bits it records as history (remember when i defined history?) are factual is not affected by the existance or the nonexistance of god. for instance, not believing in god doesn't mean that an athiest would automatically think joshua was fictional, and that he didn't really storm the city of jericho. this could have really happened, in history, without the need to believe in god. you test the bible against archaeology, yes, but there's no reason to disregard the bible outright. often, it's useful in finding sites.no one with any brains in their heads at all alleges that the bible is an entire work of fiction, with made up people and places and events. and the last time *i* heard someone say that, i chewed them for saying something so blindlingly ignorant and illogical.

---

no fair, that's a trick question. christians define their belief in god on the bible -- no extra biblical account can describe the christian god.(i think that greatly explains this thread)This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-02-2006 07:47 PM

---

Anti-supernaturalist? i.e. someone who doesn't believe in fairy tales?We are discussing history here. We have records and proof of civilizations that existed long before anyone had ever heard of the bible or judaism. These are facts.The bible is NOT A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT (although there are sections that probably depict some actual history). However, there are also sections that are obvious fiction (the flood comes to mind). The bible is subject to criticism and analysis just like any other literary work.The question here is how did the jewish beliefs arise..... and you bring up adam? Adam and eve is obvious fiction and has nothing to do with history. Adam and eve is as real as the odyssey... and I haven't seen any talking serpents or any cyclops.This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 05-02-2006 08:44 PM

Interesting. You are right. I stand corrected. Apparently they did know the name of the true God still. Then God identifies himself by that name to Moses later to make sure they know who the true God is among the myriads of phonies. Well if you find it hard to believe pre-flood it's certainly obvious post-flood. Why make a problem out of this? Why does it matter when? Satan had the whole world in his thrall from Eden on. It may have taken a while for the memory of the true God to fade and allow him to substitute his demonic hordes but certainly we know he did. But obviously they didn't know His true nature any more, or most of them didn't, or they wouldn't have reduced Him to an idol or been drawn away to other gods at all. By NAME is always meant ATTRIBUTES and CHARACTER in the Old Testament. To say they did not know His name is not to say they might not have known the literal word for His name, but that they did not know Him or what He was really like, which is certainly illustrated by their believing in idols and possession of household statues of this or that "god." I have NO idea what you are saying or why you think it answers what I said. I simply assume that on this thread people will give more credence to archaeology no matter how thin its offerings, over the Bible which is supernaturalist. I'm sure this remains true despite your ramblings above. Where did I suggest any such thing? I do wish you'd read what you think you are answering.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 08:47 PM

As I said, "Of course this Biblical account can't be accepted by an anti-supernaturalist."

The problem is if we start treating the bible as a historical document we also have to consider that the odyssey, the illad, etc. etc are also historical documents. Also, beowulf, etc. etc.In any case, this thread is about where the ideas in the bible came from, not those ideas themselves.

Fine, treat them as historical documents if there is any reason to regard them as that. Why is this a problem? Uh huh, but the Bible says that God called Abraham and guided him, not that Abraham made up God. God also called Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Samuel and all the prophets. Where are you going to find THAT idea outside the Bible? All you'll find is some cultural references to similar descriptions of gods etc, signifying nothing of value in relation to the true value of the Bible itself or the religions based on it. You can't learn about the Bible by looking outside it.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 09:41 PM

We need to look at the history and timing of both the events and cultures in the area and also when the various books of the bible were put into some written form.Alot of the stories, like those found in the various Genesis creation tales are a mixture of different myths. The older one, that found in Genesis 2 & 3 show a very different God than the later one found in Genesis 1.The history of the peoples that became the Hebrews originates in the area around the Tigris and Euphrates. It's interesting that the Euphrates was known as Al Furat, note the Al. When the two join they are known as Shatt al Arab.The early stories of Abram and his jouneys would not have been possible except for the fact that the whole area from the Persian Gulf to Canaan was realatively peaceful and under the control of the Northern Kingdoms.But these are oral traditions, influenced by the the cultures of the period and the area.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No Faith, YOU can't learn about the bible by looking outside it. On the other hand, many of us actually are very interested in the study of history, archaeology, etc and have learned a lot that way. Please don't assume your own ignorance applies to others. I don't think it's your place to tell me or anyone else that we can't study a subject in a certain way. Many scholars have learned a lot by studying the origins of the bible; and many of them are believers.There were many civilizations before the bible was written. Therefore it is an undeniable fact that the bible was written by men and those stories did in fact come from somewhere. Now, do I think people made them up? YEs, as a matter of fact. However, you could say they were divinely inspired; which isn't entirely unreasonable.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 05-02-2006 09:24 PM

Have you read any of the ways southerners characterized Abraham Lincoln? He was characterized in terrible ways. Many notherners had similiar sentiments also. Others consider him a hero. What about John Brown? And these are relatively recent historical people who received a great deal of attention by the press of the day.So you read some people and Lincoln was a hero, to others a villian. There is a great movie Rashomon:
Rashomon - Wikipedia(film)Or Ann Rule's book Everything She Ever Wanted. Conflicting witness testimony is verified in law schools every year. In the middle of a lecture someone runs in shouts something shoots a gun and runs out. Then all the law students give their accounts. You think they agree?In a way Faith for me you are the sample of en entire group of puzzling humans I characterize as fundamental literalist. I'm not speaking of only Christians here and not even mainstream religion. The puzzling thing to me appears to be your intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty and an insistence that there is a single version of the truth that can be objectively agreed upon by everyone, or at least everyone who is righteous or saved.My personal subjective preference in a forced choice is undoubtedly Christianity. Aside from Sufism, so much of Islam is repellent to me. But I'm not gonna fall for a rank over simplification that attempts to discredit the religion by claiming they worship the moon god. Something that silly should be pathetic and it is especially when religious con artists like Pat Robertson are able to exploit so many gullible people for so much money.I'm not defending Islam here. I'm defending rationalism.lfen

Faith,I know you are representing your own understanding of what Christianity is but you are a member of a church which if I've understood you is of Calvinist derivation and accepts the Westminister Catechesm.You certainly don't need to say more but I'm curious as to the specific denomination as I'd like read more about it's position on such things as archeology, history, and science.I'm trying to understand how fundamentalist groups conceive of themselves in this age of science and archeology which challenges so much of their traditonal assumptions.lfen

Arach says it's a trick question but it's whetted my curiosity. What is the earliest non-bible account of the Christian god?lfen

Your comparison is completely inapplicable, false, irrelevant. This isn't a sentiment. As I said, it isn't about what anybody believes. It's the objective factual difference between the concepts of the two Gods. This isn't about conflicting witness testimony. This is about the concepts that define the different Gods in the different systems, the sorts of differences that couldn't possibly be the result of error, corruption or the like. Why do you personalize it? Before I became a Christian you would possibly have considered me a fine example of a rationalist with a remarkable tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, as that is how most people saw me. I simply HAVE certainty now, because I now recognize truth that I hadn't recognized before. It has nothing to do with my personality at all. When you know something is the truth you treat it as the truth. The idea that this reflects an "intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty" is really pretty funny knowing what I know. Please, it really would help if you were more careful to represent your opponents' position. I for one have said I number of times that I do not claim Islam worships the moon god. Funny how Pat Robertson always has to get into this. Poor man. I don't even watch his show. OK.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 11:41 PM

i've emphasized the important parts. let's look at exodus, shall we?

quote:

---

Exd 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

---

there are two possibilities here. either way, the hebrews in egypt did not know the lord as they should have. one possibility is that they did not know him at all. which, i admit, is a perfectly acceptable reading. the other one is that they knew of him, as well as other gods, and needed to know which one moses was talking about.the tradition seems to have been lost in egypt. even by the most fundamentally "bic" reading, genesis did not exist before moses. so the hebrews, living in a polytheistic society, have nothing but (at best) oral traditions of their history. at worst, they know nothing of it. and then moses (and egyptian prince) comes out of the desert, and tells them to believe in this singular god.do you prefer that they knew of yahweh as part of their evidential pantheon, or that they had forgotten completely? the problem is that it's not in the bible. there is no mention of the tradition of yahweh being lost, and no mention of the creations of polytheistic religions. surely, that would have been right at home in the book of genesis. for a book that calls out a lot of people, and often mocks their origins, "here's why their religion is wrong" would have been quite the good addition.the best they can come up with for ishmael is "bastard." not that his gods are fake, or demons, or even that he has other gods. why is genesis totally devoid of the strict monotheistic attitude that stems from exodus? if this sounds like a dumb question, it's because it is.exodus comes after genesis, not before. deuteronomy still says that there is one son of god for each nation. at best, satan is only one of them. at worst, he's something else. but deuteronomy explains the other religions in terms of angels. are you kidding? god beats the crap out of the egyptians, performs several very, very impressive miracles, hovers around all day in a pillar of smoke, and at night with a pillar of fire, delivers a message personally from mount horeb/sinai in full earshot of israelite -- and it took them how long to make their golden calf?aaron, the high priest of israel made it, too. we're not talking generations, we're talking days. why do you think moses was so pissed? yet correlations of names are not enough, even though they also describe characteristics. hmm. i'm not sure i agree. because during the conversation they're certainly talking about names. the hebrews will want to know which god -- and one reading, as i've suggested above, is that they literally do not know this god at all.certainly they have forgotten the character either way. that's absurd. i question. i question everything. i am fully aware that some of the points i make in this debate are probably wrong. this is my mode of questioning -- get other people to prove me wrong. to convince me. sometimes, people do.having questioned a few things about it, i am fairly confident in my assertion that kings is a history, but genesis is not. some of the books in between are not as cut and dry. i am also confident that even though genesis is not a history, the places and groups of people it describes that are not verified by archaeology are still every bit as real.you make it sound like i think a bunch evil conspirators sat down and wrote a sci-fi novel. {i thought this when i was 10, before i had read any of the bible, learned anything, done any research, or became a christian} because you make it sound like questioning the bible is questioning god. the bible is a book. and while a few atheists have some pretty silly assumptions about it, so do a few christians. but another group of us -- from both camps -- prefers to look at the bible in a realistic way. as a human document, subject to question and examination. that doesn't mean that we all discount it right off, and consider it a silly and useless book of lies.it just means that if the bible tells us something, and all the evidence indicates that the bible's wrong, we side with "all the evidence." you'll have to forgive our weak faith in this matter -- i honestly do admire creationists for sticking to their guns despite all of the evidence to the contrary. the young eathers i really admire, because they are unwilling to compromise their faith in the bible by diluting it with reality. they don't even try to get it to line up with the evidence. if the evidence disagrees, it's wrong.

---