Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion

quote:

---

Psalm 19
The Perfect Revelation of the Lord
To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their *line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

​

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
6 Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

​

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward.

​

12 Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults.
13 Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;
Let them not have dominion over me.
Then I shall be blameless,
And I shall be innocent of great transgression.

​

14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.

---

Yes, scripture says that we ought to be able to recognize God in nature. Besides that psalm, Paul says it in Romans, such that we "are without excuse" if we don't recognize Him. But the fact is that we don't, and scripture also shows that we don't, including that same passage in Romans. Many are "without excuse" because the testimony is there all right, but we don't see it -- thanks to our fallen nature which has blinded us to God.Yes, we should be able to recognize from the beauty and intricate complexities of nature that it was created by an omnipotent God of great beauty and goodness and power, because nature does exhibit such qualities. But in practice it appears to be very few who do, and in my experience those who do seem to already have some belief in God from some religious tradition or other.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2006 04:52 PM

the word says we can see god in nature and easily so without the word itself. if jesus was the breath of creation, then he is in it. immaterial of your opinions, the word suggests that simply that breath of creation is sufficient to speak of god. verily, it sings. just because the people you know have all been exposed to christianity, means nothing.

Explain to me if it's so easy to read God in nature why so many people haven't a clue about the existence of God, such as some who are at EvC arguing against those who believe. Some of the smartest and most sensitive posters here are complete atheists -- oh but that's just my personal judgment.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2006 05:16 PM

oh, oh, wait. i got it. i knew i wasn;t making this up.

quote:

---

Jos 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.

---

thought outside of the this one reference, it's arguable either way. honestly, you'd be suprised how many preconceived notions find their way into our knowledge of the bible.

quote:

---

Deu 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

---

it's kind of arguable if the deuteronomist is equating the two. (not that it matters to me) that's even more arguable -- i've pointed to a much better match in the leviathan of genesis, isaiah, psalms, and job. i'm not sure i agree. jesus said we are the children of god. that we had no need to worry, because god looks after us. i think jesus would know better than paul. *coughanimalsacrificecough* did you know that all mesopotamian gods are aniconic? the hebrew traditions of "no graven images" is actually pretty common: even in babylon. babylonian idols actually represent the owner (the ones with the BIG eyes) that serve as standins, continual offerings in the temple. others are representations made out of gold and silver -- sacrifices to the god, but not the god. others are what are called "vehicles" like in hindusim. the aniconic gods were said to sit on them, but you couldn't picture the god. this is similar to the cherubim on the ark of the covenant, and is probably what the golden calfs really were. yes, quite. there is a general progression in the bible more and more away from polytheism and idolatry (except for the rather sudden appearance of satan, between samuel and chronicles). true monotheism would eliminate all adversaries and angels. as far as i know, islam denies that any other god even exists. genesis does not -- abraham never once argues that abimelech's god isn't real, for instance. the topic never seems to come up when god is kicking some egyptian magician ass in front of pharoah. just that god is more powerful, is memory serves. the topic still doesn't come up when elijah wins the bon-fire over the followers of ba'al.this whole "all other gods are fake" idea would be a great one to have in the bible. now, "other gods are demons" might work -- if that's what's really being said. ...in genesis. job is, yes. but god, in chapter 1, calls a council of his sons. this is, in fact, the very same idea of the ugaritic iluhym: il, and the sons of il. god rules by council. what makes the idea polytheistic in ugarit, but monotheistic in job? it was a trick question, anyways. in english, someone will often say to themselves "let's do this" or "let's do that." "let's" is a contraction for "let us." but we use it when we're just talking to ourselves.this is one explanation for the "we" in genesis. another is that god is talking his council of angels. no polytheism (or trinity) is required. that part where he's born of a handmaiden, not the legitimate heir to god's promised land? you can say it's true all you want -- it's still what the bible is claiming. actually, those other children were taken by the wives of abraham -- the bit about how they were born is important. they were birthed between the legs of the wives, so they were the adoptive children of isaac and his two wives, and NOT the maids. (i don't really get it either, but that's what it says) yes, exactly. the birthright is given (by god) to isaac, over ishmael. this is a common theme in the bible. in fact, it happens the very next generation, too, to jacob and easu.it's part of god singling out his chosen people -- over the other tribes of the area. right, the jews. NOT the arabs. NOT the edomites. although, first, it was about the land, the promised land, the chosen people. i never said they did. they did fight at the specific command of the lord. jews believed that commandment came straight from god -- as muslims believe their commandments come straight from god.but my point is that something changed in the attitude and tone of the bible. (resulting from god, if you wish, but that doesn't fit well, imho). i forget exactly how many, but i counted once. i think it was about abou 70 male members (not counting women). i'm sure, but jews are members of the human race too -- and it didn't take them very long at all. i don't think it is either. the bible says that nearly all of them were worshipping the calf. (except, maybe the levites. i forget) but how quickly they forgot! they had just witnessed the awesome miracles of the lord, and his presence in their full sight...

---

Hi LfenOne of the problems with dating the events in the Old Testament is that the books are rife with anachronisms, although this makes it very difficult to date for certain when the said events were said to have happened, it does help to date when the stories, as we have them, were composed.Regarding the patriarchs, there are three different lines of enquiry that scholars have used to try and date this period. First, external points of contact between bible events and known non-biblical events, secondly, datable aspects of the texts themselves suchas personal names and legal features, thirdly chronological links between the patriarchs and later bible periods.Regarding external contact points, the real problem here is the severe limitation of the sources. Apart from the Bible there is no direct evidence of any of the patriarchs, which isnt surprising considering the bible describes a family history and not the history of an important monarch or well-known international figure.Also, in the search for contact points between the partriarchal events and known external history have drawn a complete blank. The famous one being the war mentioned in Genesis 14, where a total of nine kings were involved but not a single one has been identified outside of the Bible.There are no legal practices or customs mentioned that give a unique date, and the problem with chronological links between the patriarchal period and later biblical is that the chronological information is very unreliable, with artificial genealogies and internal inconsistencies hampering conclusions.It looks very likely that the Israelite prehistory narratives contain some plausible historical information but are padded out with fiction, mainly aetiologies.I'd say the patriarchal narratives are a mixture of folk tales and historical fiction.Brian.

i said it was sufficient. i didn't say it was all convincing. if the book is so great, then why are there still atheists?

Good sleuthing. That's certainly clear enough. I don't know if this is enough to support arguments for their worshiping a PARTICULAR god in a particular pantheon though.I'd also point out that the quote supports the existence of pagan gods "on the other side of the flood" which I thought you'd said had no support at all.

If that's all you said why did you answer me? I'd said the same thing already.As for why everybody doesn't believe the book, the book has a far better record than nature at making converts, as I already pointed out. That it doesn't convert everybody is due to its requiring supernatural aid to accept what it says. But it is certainly readable without that aid, whereas nature is inscrutable to the vast majority of us.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2006 05:25 PM

if the book requires supernatural aid, then i imagine nature can demand the same. but i think the likelihood is that there are plenty of natural converts. they just don't agree with you so they aren't "real."This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-04-2006 05:27 PM

faith is actually right (gasp). the source of "hebrew" is disputed. but you're probably right, and that it comes from eber.eber is ‘
hebrew is ‘ or ‘ depending on grammar.the yud or yud-taf on the end is the same as saying (root)-ish or (root)-an or (root)-ite. in this case, the root is "eber." the reference in genesis says:

quote:

---

Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.

---

shem, of course, being the origin of "semitic" and all semitic people.however, this is not what we consider "hebrew" today. we link the concept of hebrew to the jacob, "israel." according to faith, abraham was the first hebrew, but even then, that would make all arabs hebrew (through abraham's son, ishmael). jewish, (yehudi) comes from (yehudah) or judah. the name would have to be applied post-solomon, when judah became a country separate from israel to the north. although the origin is probably post-exile, when the 10 tribes of israel failed to come back. all of israel, therefore, became "jews" from judah.today, we associate "hebrew" with the language, "israeli" with the country of origin, and "jewish" with the religion. although, i will admit, the distinction are anything but clear-cut. as ethnic groups, israelites are old testament, hebrews are new testament, jews are modern, and israelis are people who actually live in or are from the modern country of israel. "stiff-necked people." always kvetching.

---

What a very strange idea. We live in a fallen world and the Bible is a realistic picture of that fallen world and of our human fallibility. It also offers an explanation for it in the seduction in Eden and the consequent loss of communication with the one true God, and continuing seduction by fallen angels. The failure of the Israelites to hold onto their true God is just like all of us if we trust to our own devices. I love the realism of the Bible. It doesn't whitewash anything.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2006 05:33 PM

yes, i had noticed that. evidently, i had forgotten this particular verse, though. i would say "i was wrong" but it actually supports my point, not yours. i contended that the ancestors of the hebrew, prior to abram, worshiped other gods. evidently, some of those people also worshipped the lord -- the question now is: both at the same time?

---

Look up the word in a Concordance. The first entry is when I said it is. And yes I know its derivation.

Worshiping both at the same time is the most common thing of all. Many idols were worshiped AS Jehovah by the Israelites, such as the golden calf at Sinai, as I pointed out early on although you seem not to have noticed since you appear to think it's exclusively your own observation.And I never once said you were wrong about the general point! I added that it started with the Fall and you disputed that. Your quote now confirms it.What I find disputable in your argument is your dogmatic claims that this or that PARTICULAR god in a particular pantheon was worshiped as if you know that simply from the fact that it existed in the same general region, AND MOST PARTICULARLY the notion that the God of Israel ORIGINATED in such an idol. This is simply false. The God of Israel was frequently reduced to an idol but He is the one who called Abraham, Abraham did NOT pick him out of a lineup.ABE: In fact it is even possible that Abraham himself NEVER worshiped any idol at all. There is no evidence in the text for this. We do know that some of his relatives did. It is possible, in other words, that Abraham was one of those, like Job, who had held to the knowledge passed down from his ancestor Noah, of the one true invisible God. This would make sense in the light of the fact that the true God chose him to head his Chosen People.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-04-2006 05:50 PM