In response to your verses of multiple “gods”… how do you rectify that with all these verses that clearly state ONE God?
History is always written by the winners. Followers of Yahweh and then monotheism is what became orthodox and that’s what became the theme of the old testament. The same thing happened in the formation of the new testament. Whatever was deemed orthodox was included in the canon, everything else was deemed heretical. ”
Hi Dave..
I don’t see the answer to my question here.. your examples of “multiple gods” and my examples that clearly state One God.. are all mixed together.. according to your definition of “gods” there is clearly contradictions all throughout the Bible.. how do you explain this? Especially since you’ve noted that anything deemed heretical could be edited out.
me:”Also, I was wondering, what was the reason for changing from polytheism to monotheism? especially in such a dishonest manor? What was so wrong with polytheism that they felt it had to be changed?
you: I think at first priests of Yahweh wanted to push the fact that Yahweh was superior to the other gods. They wanted people sacrificing to Yahweh and not to Baal, Asherah or the other gods because there were benefits associated with being a successful priest. You get free room and board and free food not to mention some pretty nice robes. Eventually they pushed the ideology that Yahweh and El were one and the same and that all the other gods were false.”
Ok.. that’s fine.. but WHY do you think that? What is the evidence for this? You’re basically claiming that these people were NOT interested in the truth, they were pushing a huge lie for material gain. It is much more reasonable to believe that they were sincere about their faith. You’ve got to come up with evidence to believe the contrary.
Superior doesn’t mean that they needed to claim monotheism. You say it became “orthodox”.. but why? Monotheism was a completely new idea.. and it is the very foundation of Judaism / Christianity. And it’s all because of some self serving priests? You need evidence for this. There is a ton of evidence to support the claim of ONE God. The entire Bible. You/ atheists are misunderstanding “gods” when it is used in the Bible. They are celestial beings unequal with the Creator of all.
“Have you considered that the Adam & Eve and flood stories might be allegorical?
If you mean stories, then yes, that’s exactly what I think they are. They may even be adapted stories, the flood story is very similar to a Sumerian story in the epic of Gilgamesh.”
Adam & Eve seems allegorical to me, the flood does not.
me:”No, that’s not fact either… they aren’t “changes”.. they are interpretations.
you: Call them what you like. They are different.”
Dave, I find this answer kind of disingenuous. They weren’t “changes”. And being “different” is due to varying groups of people with different backgrounds searching for the correct translation based on surrounding text/ context.. much more objective than your theory that they were devious attempts to perfect the “lie”. Again, you have no evidence for this claim. It’s biased speculation.
“me:” The main goal of interpretation is to be as accurate as possible to the original meaning.
you: We have no way of knowing what was going on in the minds of the Hebrew scribes from 2500+ years ago. You are giving them a lot of trust. Do you give that kind of trust to all men?”
My trust is not solely on them Dave.. again, my trust is based on ALL the evidence together. I’m applying objectivity and reason. Interestingly, you DO seem to “know” what was going on in the minds of those priests. You have no evidence.. my evidence is the overwhelming compelling evidence that supports the Truth of the Bible.
me: That’s right, we don’t..[have the originals] so there is no way of knowing which are the closest to the originals. To make a conclusion that the oldest would be the most accurate is a mistake.
you: It may or may not be a mistake, but it seems reasonable since things have a habit of changing over time. So less time would equal less change. Nothing is for certain.”
Again, assumptions like that are what lead us to false “truths”.
“Let me try this again. There are many hypothesis regarding origins.”
There are 2.. God or accident.
And neither one is a logical starting point.
“Most of the scientific hypothesis propose that there was always something material rather than nothing”.
Not rational.. and there is no scientific basis for this belief. Also, do you have a reference for this claim?
Especially since it’s been scientifically determined that the universe is expanding.. logic dictates
that that means there was a starting point.. which means nothing before the starting point.
“The reason I believe that these scientific hypothesis are better than the God hypothesis is that they are testable; meaning that if they hypothesis is wrong it is discarded and other hypothesis are tested.”
HOW is it testable?
“God as an explanation for existence is scientifically untestable with I feel makes it an inferior hypothesis.”
How do you know God is untestable? Again, sources?
“But you are right, we do have to apply logic and reason. So in the absence of proof I feel it is reasonable to conclude that no particular hypothesis, including the God hypothesis, is the best explanation for our origins.”
Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator. And due to the complexity, it’s much more reasonable that we were created than everything happened by accident.. from a non beginning of eternal existence.. which is “perfectly reasonable” to believe if it’s matter, but not for an Eternal Being.
I don’t see the answer to my question here.. your examples of “multiple gods” and my examples that clearly state One God.. are all mixed together.. according to your definition of “gods” there is clearly contradictions all throughout the Bible.. how do you explain this? Especially since you’ve noted that anything deemed heretical could be edited out.
It’s possible that some references were edited out completely (we’ll never know) and perhaps some were missed. In two of the examples I gave (Deut. 32:8-9 and Deut. 32:43) the references were edited out. My explanation of this will also cover this comment you made:
Dave, I find this answer kind of disingenuous. They weren’t “changes”. And being “different” is due to varying groups of people with different backgrounds searching for the correct translation based on surrounding text/ context.. much more objective than your theory that they were devious attempts to perfect the “lie”. Again, you have no evidence for this claim. It’s biased speculation.
Since we are discussing the sources, specifically the DSS and the MT they are both written in the original language, Hebrew. So there is no translation going on. It is simply scribes copying the letters from one document to the next. The link you gave me from Dallas Theological Seminary agrees with this. In Hebrew, the “sons of the gods” (DSS) is: bny ‘l[hym] and also in Hebrew the “sons of Israel” (MT) is bny yshr’l. So someone who was copying Hebrew to Hebrew had to change the word.
[following my explanation of the priests of Yahweh]
Ok.. that’s fine.. but WHY do you think that? What is the evidence for this? You’re basically claiming that these people were NOT interested in the truth, they were pushing a huge lie for material gain.
You asked me what I thought the reason was and I told you my theory. Yes, it is speculation, but I have read the old testament multiple times and use it as a reference. The priests of Yahweh required animal sacrifices from the people just like the priests of other gods did. The priests of Yahweh were allowed to eat these afterwards (Lev. 6:26). The priests were given nice garments (Exodus 39). The laws given to the people involved many reasons to bring sacrifices of different kinds. The priests did not have to work or fight as everyone else did. You accused me of claiming to “know” what was going on in the minds of the priests. I don’t think I said that. But I do know a lot about human nature and how men think. Men are lazy and greedy and frequently use their power to manipulate others. I think that’s why men like Saul, David and Solomon had several hundred women to sleep with, but that’s a different topic.
It is much more reasonable to believe that they were sincere about their faith.
Why do you think that?
Adam & Eve seems allegorical to me, the flood does not.
Kathy, have you read the flood story from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh? It was a shocker for me when I first read it.
You have no evidence.. my evidence is the overwhelming compelling evidence that supports the Truth of the Bible.
Why are you capitalizing truth? Why are you saying I have no evidence?
No, it wasn’t, and if you ever read anything but the Bible, you might know that.
The Canaanites, as Dave has pointed out, had a pantheon of gods, as did their ancestors, the Akkadians, and the Sumerians before them – the latter two groups occupied Mesopotamia, from which the Canaanites migrated when Sargon, the Akkadian king, opened a trade route from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean, then all down the Levant nearly to Egypt.
Egypt, on the other hand, was not a united country, theologically-speaking. Some cults worshiped Ra as their sole god (Ra later became combined with other gods brought into the country by other cultures) – this was a monotheism. Ra was worshiped as the creator god to some Ancient Egyptians, specifically his followers at Heliopolis. It was believed that Ra wept, and from the tears he wept came man. These cult-followers believed that Ra was self-created
On the other hand, other Egyptian cults worshiped a god named Ptah. In the Memphite theology, Ptah was the primal creator, the first of all the gods, creator of the world and all that is in it. He is not created, but simply is. In some stories he is the personification of the primal matter, Ta-Tenen, which rose out of Nun, the fundamental seas. Followers of Ptah believed that Ra was created by Ptah.
Meanwhile, back in beautiful downtown Mesopotamia, a group of nomadic Semites split their tribe, with some continuing to maintain their nomadic existence, while others chose an agrarian lifestyle, giving up their wandering ways for homesteads in the northern part of Mesopotamia, with their capital at Allepo, Assyria. These Semites were known as Amurrites, so named after the one god they followed, Amurru.
The Sumerians had maintained a communal theocracy as the sole residents of Mesopotamia for 4000 years, before the seemingly innocuous Akkadians had filtered into the northern part of the valley. With time, the Akkadians grew in size and power, until finally, in a series of wars, overcame the Sumerians. Within a century of the final conquest, Sumerian was spoken only in Sumerian religious ceremonies.
One would think that having used these tactics themselves, the Akkadians would have noticed when the Amurrites began employing them – within a couple of hundred years, the Amurrites had grown to the point that they were able to overcome the Akkadians, as the Akkadians had overcome the Sumerians.
As mentioned, the Amurrites were monothistic, although their one god, Amurru, DID have a wife. Interestingly, Amurru was also known by another name, “El Shaddai” – his wife’s name was Ashera.
In the first part of Exodus, we learn that Moses had fled Egypt, after killing an Egyptian official, and had taken refugee with a tribe known as the Midianites (aka, the Kennites), even taking the daughter of the Midianite priest, Jethro, as his wife. The Midianites/Kennites worshiped an obscure desert god they called Yahweh – this has been recorded in the history of the Egyptians.
In the sixth chapter of Exodus, Moses meets Yahweh for the first time, old Yah has an interesting thing to say – he says, that his name was Yahweh, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: (6:3) “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name, JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” You have to go to the original Hebrew for the “El Shaddai” however, because when the KJV was written, the term “El Shaddai” was replaced with “Gold Almighty” – research it, it’s a fact.
Another cover-up occurred during the time of King Josiah ahd the “prophet,” Jerimiah. Both tried hard to eliminate the worship of Asherah from the Hebrew religion, which wasn’t easy, as the religion itself pushed having children, and after all, Asherah WAS a fertility goddess. Eventually, all of the Asherah poles were cut down – I’ll leave it to speculation as to why a pole would be a fertility symbol.
If there’s any doubt that the early Jews worshiped Amurru and his wife Asherah, then later, as a people, joined for a time with the Midianites/Kennites, where they merged their Amurru with Yahweh/Jehova into a single god, note that in excavations at Kuntillet Ajrud, in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula, two pieces of pottery were found, dating to the 8th or 9th centuries BCE. One was inscribed to: “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah” and the other to: “Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah.“
Just a few thoughts on the “Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator”…
If there is an invisible deity out there, should he be wondering why he exists? (or she or it)
Since this deity would have no way of knowing whether it was created from another dimension or not, this could be very puzzling for said deity. Would it be reasonable then for this deity to conclude that it must have been created from another dimension?
Also, just because our local universe may have started from the big bang does not mean that it started from absolute nothing.
To be fair there are several possibilities, not just god vs. accident:
eternal multiverse
eternal recycling universe
universe from nothing
eternal deity (single)
deity from nothing
eternal deities (plural)
infinite single deitys creating one after the next
single deity (or multiple) that created but no longer exists
etc.
““Let me try this again. There are many hypothesis regarding origins.”
There are 2.. God or accident”</blockquote
Actually, there are three:
1. An invisible, magical spirit who lives beyond space and time.
2. Accident
3. Scientific reasons we've yet to discover.
"logic dictates that that means there was a starting point.. which means nothing before the starting point.”
That does not at all mean that there was nothing before the starting point – before the present universe, there could well have been a recycling universe that expanded, then contracted under it’s own gravity.
“Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator. – then if your creator exists, he/she/it too, must have had a creator.
me: I don’t see the answer to my question here.. your examples of “multiple gods” and my examples that clearly state One God.. are all mixed together.. according to your definition of “gods” there is clearly contradictions all throughout the Bible.. how do you explain this? Especially since you’ve noted that anything deemed heretical could be edited out.
you: It’s possible that some references were edited out completely (we’ll never know) and perhaps some were missed. In two of the examples I gave (Deut. 32:8-9 and Deut. 32:43) the references were edited out.”
Dave, are you claiming that all those numerous examples of “multiple gods” in the Bible were simply “missed”? That they didn’t notice those passages? Is that your explanation?
“So someone who was copying Hebrew to Hebrew had to change the word. ”
I apologize.. I said “translation” when I meant “interpretation”.
I don’t deny that it was certainly possible that words were altered by various people for various reasons.. which is why it’s not easy to determine the original meaning and why it was addressed so carefully by people throughout history who DID care about finding the truth.. the original / correct meanings.
Did you visit this link I posted in a few comments ago to you? The article does acknowledge that the Essenes did make minute changes.
“As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were created by the Essenes. This sect held a curious devotion to angels. Josephus, describing what a convert to the sect had to observe, writes: “Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the means of the angels.” (Wars of the Jews, Book 2, chapter 7). The phrase “sons of God” in the Dead Sea Scrolls is a term for angels (Job 1:6). It is not surprising that an Essene text prefers a reference to angels rather than to the children of Israel. The Essenes, being an isolated sect, did not care so much for the other Israelites.”
“You asked me what I thought the reason was and I told you my theory. Yes, it is speculation, but I have read the old testament multiple times and use it as a reference. The priests of Yahweh required animal sacrifices from the people just like the priests of other gods did. The priests of Yahweh were allowed to eat these afterwards (Lev. 6:26). The priests were given nice garments (Exodus 39). The laws given to the people involved many reasons to bring sacrifices of different kinds. The priests did not have to work or fight as everyone else did. You accused me of claiming to “know” what was going on in the minds of the priests. I don’t think I said that. But I do know a lot about human nature and how men think. Men are lazy and greedy and frequently use their power to manipulate others.”
You’re a man.. is this true of you? So, you’re not trying to determine the truth? All of this is for some other reason? If you “know” human nature then you know that man has always sought the answer to the oldest most important question. For a few priests to rewrite their people’s beliefs for their own personal gain of robes and free meals seems incredibly naïve.. those kinds of people are the exception.. not the rule. Citing scripture that shows they got “perks” as if that’s a valid motive, especially when it’s food and robes.. that’s just not very convincing Dave.
“Adam & Eve seems allegorical to me, the flood does not.
Kathy, have you read the flood story from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh? It was a shocker for me when I first read it. ”
I don’t deny that it is “compelling” evidence.. but it’s not proof. It’s like saying that if someone writes about something in history then it can never happen for real.. what scientific data backs that up??
“Just a few thoughts on the “Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator”…
If there is an invisible deity out there, should he be wondering why he exists? (or she or it)
Since this deity would have no way of knowing whether it was created from another dimension or not, this could be very puzzling for said deity. Would it be reasonable then for this deity to conclude that it must have been created from another dimension?”
I’m not sure what your point is here.. and I’m not sure why these supposed thoughts of our Creator would be relevant to the question of His existence.
If you’re trying to point out how “crazy” it is.. no kidding.. what’s your alternative explanation
exactly.. and please explain how it’s any less crazy.
Your list of possibilities of our origins ALL fall under
one of two possible choices.. a Creator or accident.
And the idea that matter always existed is just as irrational as God always existing.
So, again, I don’t get your point about what our Creator could possibly be thinking
about His existence.
The fact is we are here. And the other fact is that it isn’t logical for us to be here.
That’s enough to humble the average human being… and then there are liberals.. 🙂
Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator. And due to the complexity, it’s much more reasonable that we were created than everything happened by accident.. from a non beginning of eternal existence.. which is “perfectly reasonable” to believe if it’s matter, but not for an Eternal Being.
I’m just asking questions here: You said before(somewhere and I’m not going back through all these comments to copy and paste) that you believed the Universe to be older than 6000 years based on the scientific data. Am I right about that or did I misunderstand?
Do you believe that humans were “created” 6000 years ago? Or do you believe the human race is older than that? Do you find it reasonable to conclude that humans were “created” in their current form or did they evolve in some fashion?
The fact is we are here. And the other fact is that it isn’t logical for us to be here.
That’s enough to humble the average human being… and then there are liberals.
I’m quite humbled by existence. Not just human existence, but the existence of the vast expanse of the universe. It is quite impossible not to be humbled by it all. But the fact is I don’t believe your God created this so I’m not particularly humbled by him.
And neither one is a logical starting point. -Kathy
If you’re trying to point out how “crazy” it is.. no kidding.. – Kathy
How can you make this statement and then remain so indignant towardt those who don’t believe in your God?
For the record, I’m not really even opposed to the idea of a creator. I just don’t believe that it’s any of the gods that have been proposed. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe if there is a creator that we can know anything about this creator.
But I also do not object to the idea that a Universe has always existed. Not the universe as we know it but it seems plausible to me that, even though our current universe is expanding, there has been at some point and might be again a contraction. The Big Bang only speaks to time and space as we know it. We don’t know what came before the Big Bang. We don’t know that there was nothing.
“what scientific data backs that up??”
What scientific data backs up the fact that there was no universal flood that covered the entire earth 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains? Well, let’s see —
Peter A. Clayton wrote a book with a rather lengthy title: Chronicle of the Pharaohs, The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt (London. Thames & Hudson. 1994).
In his book, Clayton demonstrated that the Egyptian Pharaonic Civilization predated the biblical flood. Clayton gave the following dates for Egyptian Dynasties and their Pharaohs.
Now Noah’s flood occurred in either 2958 B.C.E. as calculated by the Roman Catholic scholar Euseibus, or 2348 B.C.E. as calculated by Archbishop Ussher and Sir John Lightfoot. We must bear in mind that Ussher and Lightfoot had access to the Gregorian calendar we use today, while Euseibus, who lived in the third century B.C.E., had only the less accurate Julian calendar with which to work, which inclines one to lean more toward acceptance of Ussher’s date, than Euseibus’.
Unless, of course, one sees the irony of attempting to establish an exact date for the occurrence of a fictitious event, as being much like trying to deduce the age of Superman by accurately determining in exactly what year he was born – and failing to see the irrelevance.
Clayton informs us that archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of the above Pharaohs for the associated Dynasties (3150-2181 B.C.E.) and excavations showed no flood layer of silt above their tombs, deposited by Noah’s alleged Universal Flood, or Utanapishtim’s, or Xisuthrus’, or Atrakhasis’ or the primeval octopus’, or any other.
Nor do the records or annals of Egypt – and those guys were anal about annals – make any mention of a universal, world-encompassing flood, anywhere, at any time.
Clayton’s conclusion was that if there had been a universal, globe-encompassing flood in the third millennium B.C.E., there is no evidence of it in Egypt, just a really long stone’s-throw away from the Mesopotamian region where Noah’s flood reputedly began.
In Clayton’s own words: “The absence of the mention of such a flood in Egyptian records and annals, from the same general Middle-Eastern area where can be found ‘the mountains of Ararat’ (where Noah’s Ark allegedly landed, parenthesis, mine), combined with the archaeological evidence from the Pharaohs’ tombs, created before the 2958/2348 B.C.E. flood occurred, reveal that the tale of Noah’s flood is a myth.”
Kathy, it seems we are agreed that there is much unknown since we don’t have the original copies. Here are my reasons for accepting the dead sea scroll version:
Deut. 32: 8-9
When Elyon divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of the sons of the gods.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
The entire passage seems to be speaking of Elyon, most high, splitting up the nations, giving them borders and the number of these nations was equal to the number of [fill in the blank: angels, sons of god, or sons of Israel]. What is interesting is that Yahweh is given Jacob (Israel) as his inheritance. Does it make sense to think that the most high was giving an inheritance to himself (Yahweh)? No, usually inheritances are given to a son. Whether this makes Yahweh one of the angels or one of the sons is not really important.
Kathy, if you think it’s outrageous for men to be greedy, lazy or manipulative especially when they are in power.. well, I’ll just leave that up to you to decide. I don’t think we’d be hard pressed to find examples of men like that. If you don’t find it convincing, that’s fine.
Your list of possibilities of our origins ALL fall under one of two possible choices.. a Creator or accident. ~Kathy
Well, at least you are using the word creator instead of God which has a lot attached to it. We also could have been created by accident, like unintentionally created by a deity. Or there could be eternal Creators plural.
Your waffling is below – in your own words. This is just one topic. Please read and clarify your question, because it looks like you’ve been trying to change it.
“You aren’t making sense.. yes, I said I didn’t ask which you believed to be the most true, I asked which you believed had the most evidence.” – Kathy, October 14, 22014 at 4:43pm (open conversation part 3)
Nope, sorry William, this isn’t going to work.. my question doesn’t even ask which religion you think is “divine”. And I just don’t believe you aren’t comprehending my question.” – Kathy, July 30, 2014 (Letter to kathy part 3)
“I NEVER asked for which one Nate thought was true William. Please re-read my comments.. you’re twisting and distorting just like everyone else in order to get Nate out of this dilemma he has put himself in by refusing to apply honesty and objectivity.” – Kathy, july 10, 2014 at 4:29pm (letter to kathy)
“I’m only asking you (REPEATEDLY) to give your opinion on which one you believe has the most evidence to support it’s claimed truth. Every doctor has “credentials”.. aka evidence for their “qualifications”.. but not every doctor is a good doctor or could even be considered qualified despite their “credentials”.. but regardless, there are “credentials” to acknowledge.” – Kathy, july 10, 2014 at 1:43pm (letter to kathy)
““People dying for their beliefs is only evidence of conviction, not truth.”
Also not true. It’s evidence for their convictions but it’s ALSO evidence for the truth of the Bible/ Christianity. If this were a “case” presented in a courtroom before a jury, this would be considered testimonial circumstantial evidence, which is often considered extremely valuable evidence.” – Kathy, july 10, 2014 at 12:24am (letter to kathy)
“And if you can’t name another that has more credentials, then ACKNOWLEDGE that Christianity has the most evidence to support it’s truth or “claimed” truth.. ”” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 11:59pm (letter to Kathy)
All of this is EVIDENCE that CORROBORATES the claimed truth of the Bible and
the existence of God.” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 10:04pm (letter to kathy)
“Yes, while I do claim that you all are ignorant of the reality that evidence for Christianity IS complelling, that’s NOT the ignorance I’m accusing you all of presently.. THAT ignorance would be for deliberately ignoring/ refusing to acknowledge the unopposed FACT that Christianity has the most evidence for it’s truth. You’re getting your ignorances mixed up kc.. which, knowing liberals as I do, that’s perfectly understandable. :(“ – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 5:31pl (letter to Kathy)
“it’s a simple question that requires a simple answer.. which religion has the most evidence aka credentials to support it’s truth or claimed truth?” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 2:00pm (letter to kathy)
Finding Truth 
… documented evidence of a man named Jesus ???
What documentation? The bible? And what “proof” and/or “evidence” (remember, Kathy, they are not the same) do you have for its validity?
LikeLike
“the documented evidence of a man named Jesus” – there is no such documented evidence.
LikeLike
Oh Arch. Don’t be a spoil sport.
LikeLike
Dave
October 13, 2014 at 8:18 am
Hi Kathy,
In response to your verses of multiple “gods”… how do you rectify that with all these verses that clearly state ONE God?
History is always written by the winners. Followers of Yahweh and then monotheism is what became orthodox and that’s what became the theme of the old testament. The same thing happened in the formation of the new testament. Whatever was deemed orthodox was included in the canon, everything else was deemed heretical. ”
Hi Dave..
I don’t see the answer to my question here.. your examples of “multiple gods” and my examples that clearly state One God.. are all mixed together.. according to your definition of “gods” there is clearly contradictions all throughout the Bible.. how do you explain this? Especially since you’ve noted that anything deemed heretical could be edited out.
me:”Also, I was wondering, what was the reason for changing from polytheism to monotheism? especially in such a dishonest manor? What was so wrong with polytheism that they felt it had to be changed?
you: I think at first priests of Yahweh wanted to push the fact that Yahweh was superior to the other gods. They wanted people sacrificing to Yahweh and not to Baal, Asherah or the other gods because there were benefits associated with being a successful priest. You get free room and board and free food not to mention some pretty nice robes. Eventually they pushed the ideology that Yahweh and El were one and the same and that all the other gods were false.”
Ok.. that’s fine.. but WHY do you think that? What is the evidence for this? You’re basically claiming that these people were NOT interested in the truth, they were pushing a huge lie for material gain. It is much more reasonable to believe that they were sincere about their faith. You’ve got to come up with evidence to believe the contrary.
Superior doesn’t mean that they needed to claim monotheism. You say it became “orthodox”.. but why? Monotheism was a completely new idea.. and it is the very foundation of Judaism / Christianity. And it’s all because of some self serving priests? You need evidence for this. There is a ton of evidence to support the claim of ONE God. The entire Bible. You/ atheists are misunderstanding “gods” when it is used in the Bible. They are celestial beings unequal with the Creator of all.
LikeLike
Dave cont..
“Have you considered that the Adam & Eve and flood stories might be allegorical?
If you mean stories, then yes, that’s exactly what I think they are. They may even be adapted stories, the flood story is very similar to a Sumerian story in the epic of Gilgamesh.”
Adam & Eve seems allegorical to me, the flood does not.
me:”No, that’s not fact either… they aren’t “changes”.. they are interpretations.
you: Call them what you like. They are different.”
Dave, I find this answer kind of disingenuous. They weren’t “changes”. And being “different” is due to varying groups of people with different backgrounds searching for the correct translation based on surrounding text/ context.. much more objective than your theory that they were devious attempts to perfect the “lie”. Again, you have no evidence for this claim. It’s biased speculation.
“me:” The main goal of interpretation is to be as accurate as possible to the original meaning.
you: We have no way of knowing what was going on in the minds of the Hebrew scribes from 2500+ years ago. You are giving them a lot of trust. Do you give that kind of trust to all men?”
My trust is not solely on them Dave.. again, my trust is based on ALL the evidence together. I’m applying objectivity and reason. Interestingly, you DO seem to “know” what was going on in the minds of those priests. You have no evidence.. my evidence is the overwhelming compelling evidence that supports the Truth of the Bible.
me: That’s right, we don’t..[have the originals] so there is no way of knowing which are the closest to the originals. To make a conclusion that the oldest would be the most accurate is a mistake.
you: It may or may not be a mistake, but it seems reasonable since things have a habit of changing over time. So less time would equal less change. Nothing is for certain.”
Again, assumptions like that are what lead us to false “truths”.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Let me try this again. There are many hypothesis regarding origins.”
There are 2.. God or accident.
And neither one is a logical starting point.
“Most of the scientific hypothesis propose that there was always something material rather than nothing”.
Not rational.. and there is no scientific basis for this belief. Also, do you have a reference for this claim?
Especially since it’s been scientifically determined that the universe is expanding.. logic dictates
that that means there was a starting point.. which means nothing before the starting point.
“The reason I believe that these scientific hypothesis are better than the God hypothesis is that they are testable; meaning that if they hypothesis is wrong it is discarded and other hypothesis are tested.”
HOW is it testable?
“God as an explanation for existence is scientifically untestable with I feel makes it an inferior hypothesis.”
How do you know God is untestable? Again, sources?
“But you are right, we do have to apply logic and reason. So in the absence of proof I feel it is reasonable to conclude that no particular hypothesis, including the God hypothesis, is the best explanation for our origins.”
Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator. And due to the complexity, it’s much more reasonable that we were created than everything happened by accident.. from a non beginning of eternal existence.. which is “perfectly reasonable” to believe if it’s matter, but not for an Eternal Being.
LikeLike
“You have no evidence.. my evidence is the overwhelming compelling evidence that supports the Truth of the Bible.”
When you are BOTH debating the same “Copies” , YOU , Kathy have NO more evidence than Dave.
I believe you (Kathy) are using as much conjecture as Dave.
conjecture = an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
LikeLike
Thought this was a brilliant video
Have a great day everyone!
LikeLike
Kathy, You choose to believe a “god” is responsible for human existence. Sources? (And the bible doesn’t count.)
LikeLike
Kathy, thanks for taking the time to respond.
It’s possible that some references were edited out completely (we’ll never know) and perhaps some were missed. In two of the examples I gave (Deut. 32:8-9 and Deut. 32:43) the references were edited out. My explanation of this will also cover this comment you made:
Since we are discussing the sources, specifically the DSS and the MT they are both written in the original language, Hebrew. So there is no translation going on. It is simply scribes copying the letters from one document to the next. The link you gave me from Dallas Theological Seminary agrees with this. In Hebrew, the “sons of the gods” (DSS) is: bny ‘l[hym] and also in Hebrew the “sons of Israel” (MT) is bny yshr’l. So someone who was copying Hebrew to Hebrew had to change the word.
You asked me what I thought the reason was and I told you my theory. Yes, it is speculation, but I have read the old testament multiple times and use it as a reference. The priests of Yahweh required animal sacrifices from the people just like the priests of other gods did. The priests of Yahweh were allowed to eat these afterwards (Lev. 6:26). The priests were given nice garments (Exodus 39). The laws given to the people involved many reasons to bring sacrifices of different kinds. The priests did not have to work or fight as everyone else did. You accused me of claiming to “know” what was going on in the minds of the priests. I don’t think I said that. But I do know a lot about human nature and how men think. Men are lazy and greedy and frequently use their power to manipulate others. I think that’s why men like Saul, David and Solomon had several hundred women to sleep with, but that’s a different topic.
Why do you think that?
Kathy, have you read the flood story from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh? It was a shocker for me when I first read it.
“Monotheism was a completely new idea..”
No, it wasn’t, and if you ever read anything but the Bible, you might know that.
The Canaanites, as Dave has pointed out, had a pantheon of gods, as did their ancestors, the Akkadians, and the Sumerians before them – the latter two groups occupied Mesopotamia, from which the Canaanites migrated when Sargon, the Akkadian king, opened a trade route from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean, then all down the Levant nearly to Egypt.
Egypt, on the other hand, was not a united country, theologically-speaking. Some cults worshiped Ra as their sole god (Ra later became combined with other gods brought into the country by other cultures) – this was a monotheism. Ra was worshiped as the creator god to some Ancient Egyptians, specifically his followers at Heliopolis. It was believed that Ra wept, and from the tears he wept came man. These cult-followers believed that Ra was self-created
On the other hand, other Egyptian cults worshiped a god named Ptah. In the Memphite theology, Ptah was the primal creator, the first of all the gods, creator of the world and all that is in it. He is not created, but simply is. In some stories he is the personification of the primal matter, Ta-Tenen, which rose out of Nun, the fundamental seas. Followers of Ptah believed that Ra was created by Ptah.
Meanwhile, back in beautiful downtown Mesopotamia, a group of nomadic Semites split their tribe, with some continuing to maintain their nomadic existence, while others chose an agrarian lifestyle, giving up their wandering ways for homesteads in the northern part of Mesopotamia, with their capital at Allepo, Assyria. These Semites were known as Amurrites, so named after the one god they followed, Amurru.
The Sumerians had maintained a communal theocracy as the sole residents of Mesopotamia for 4000 years, before the seemingly innocuous Akkadians had filtered into the northern part of the valley. With time, the Akkadians grew in size and power, until finally, in a series of wars, overcame the Sumerians. Within a century of the final conquest, Sumerian was spoken only in Sumerian religious ceremonies.
One would think that having used these tactics themselves, the Akkadians would have noticed when the Amurrites began employing them – within a couple of hundred years, the Amurrites had grown to the point that they were able to overcome the Akkadians, as the Akkadians had overcome the Sumerians.
As mentioned, the Amurrites were monothistic, although their one god, Amurru, DID have a wife. Interestingly, Amurru was also known by another name, “El Shaddai” – his wife’s name was Ashera.
In the first part of Exodus, we learn that Moses had fled Egypt, after killing an Egyptian official, and had taken refugee with a tribe known as the Midianites (aka, the Kennites), even taking the daughter of the Midianite priest, Jethro, as his wife. The Midianites/Kennites worshiped an obscure desert god they called Yahweh – this has been recorded in the history of the Egyptians.
In the sixth chapter of Exodus, Moses meets Yahweh for the first time, old Yah has an interesting thing to say – he says, that his name was Yahweh, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: (6:3) “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name, JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” You have to go to the original Hebrew for the “El Shaddai” however, because when the KJV was written, the term “El Shaddai” was replaced with “Gold Almighty” – research it, it’s a fact.
Another cover-up occurred during the time of King Josiah ahd the “prophet,” Jerimiah. Both tried hard to eliminate the worship of Asherah from the Hebrew religion, which wasn’t easy, as the religion itself pushed having children, and after all, Asherah WAS a fertility goddess. Eventually, all of the Asherah poles were cut down – I’ll leave it to speculation as to why a pole would be a fertility symbol.
If there’s any doubt that the early Jews worshiped Amurru and his wife Asherah, then later, as a people, joined for a time with the Midianites/Kennites, where they merged their Amurru with Yahweh/Jehova into a single god, note that in excavations at Kuntillet Ajrud, in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula, two pieces of pottery were found, dating to the 8th or 9th centuries BCE. One was inscribed to: “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah” and the other to: “Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah.“
LikeLike
Just a few thoughts on the “Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator”…
If there is an invisible deity out there, should he be wondering why he exists? (or she or it)
Since this deity would have no way of knowing whether it was created from another dimension or not, this could be very puzzling for said deity. Would it be reasonable then for this deity to conclude that it must have been created from another dimension?
Also, just because our local universe may have started from the big bang does not mean that it started from absolute nothing.
To be fair there are several possibilities, not just god vs. accident:
eternal multiverse
eternal recycling universe
universe from nothing
eternal deity (single)
deity from nothing
eternal deities (plural)
infinite single deitys creating one after the next
single deity (or multiple) that created but no longer exists
etc.
LikeLike
“Again, assumptions like that are what lead us to false ‘truths’.” – you’re making the greatest assumptions of all – that there’s a god.
LikeLike
Wow! You leave out one > and that’s what you get!
LikeLike
“Dave
October 14, 2014 at 9:01 pm
Kathy, thanks for taking the time to respond.
me: I don’t see the answer to my question here.. your examples of “multiple gods” and my examples that clearly state One God.. are all mixed together.. according to your definition of “gods” there is clearly contradictions all throughout the Bible.. how do you explain this? Especially since you’ve noted that anything deemed heretical could be edited out.
you: It’s possible that some references were edited out completely (we’ll never know) and perhaps some were missed. In two of the examples I gave (Deut. 32:8-9 and Deut. 32:43) the references were edited out.”
Dave, are you claiming that all those numerous examples of “multiple gods” in the Bible were simply “missed”? That they didn’t notice those passages? Is that your explanation?
LikeLike
Dave cont..
“So someone who was copying Hebrew to Hebrew had to change the word. ”
I apologize.. I said “translation” when I meant “interpretation”.
I don’t deny that it was certainly possible that words were altered by various people for various reasons.. which is why it’s not easy to determine the original meaning and why it was addressed so carefully by people throughout history who DID care about finding the truth.. the original / correct meanings.
Did you visit this link I posted in a few comments ago to you? The article does acknowledge that the Essenes did make minute changes.
“As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were created by the Essenes. This sect held a curious devotion to angels. Josephus, describing what a convert to the sect had to observe, writes: “Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the means of the angels.” (Wars of the Jews, Book 2, chapter 7). The phrase “sons of God” in the Dead Sea Scrolls is a term for angels (Job 1:6). It is not surprising that an Essene text prefers a reference to angels rather than to the children of Israel. The Essenes, being an isolated sect, did not care so much for the other Israelites.”
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/sons-of-israel-or-sons-of-god-in-deuteronomy-328
“You asked me what I thought the reason was and I told you my theory. Yes, it is speculation, but I have read the old testament multiple times and use it as a reference. The priests of Yahweh required animal sacrifices from the people just like the priests of other gods did. The priests of Yahweh were allowed to eat these afterwards (Lev. 6:26). The priests were given nice garments (Exodus 39). The laws given to the people involved many reasons to bring sacrifices of different kinds. The priests did not have to work or fight as everyone else did. You accused me of claiming to “know” what was going on in the minds of the priests. I don’t think I said that. But I do know a lot about human nature and how men think. Men are lazy and greedy and frequently use their power to manipulate others.”
You’re a man.. is this true of you? So, you’re not trying to determine the truth? All of this is for some other reason? If you “know” human nature then you know that man has always sought the answer to the oldest most important question. For a few priests to rewrite their people’s beliefs for their own personal gain of robes and free meals seems incredibly naïve.. those kinds of people are the exception.. not the rule. Citing scripture that shows they got “perks” as if that’s a valid motive, especially when it’s food and robes.. that’s just not very convincing Dave.
“Adam & Eve seems allegorical to me, the flood does not.
Kathy, have you read the flood story from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh? It was a shocker for me when I first read it. ”
I don’t deny that it is “compelling” evidence.. but it’s not proof. It’s like saying that if someone writes about something in history then it can never happen for real.. what scientific data backs that up??
LikeLike
Dave, cont..
“Just a few thoughts on the “Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator”…
If there is an invisible deity out there, should he be wondering why he exists? (or she or it)
Since this deity would have no way of knowing whether it was created from another dimension or not, this could be very puzzling for said deity. Would it be reasonable then for this deity to conclude that it must have been created from another dimension?”
I’m not sure what your point is here.. and I’m not sure why these supposed thoughts of our Creator would be relevant to the question of His existence.
If you’re trying to point out how “crazy” it is.. no kidding.. what’s your alternative explanation
exactly.. and please explain how it’s any less crazy.
Your list of possibilities of our origins ALL fall under
one of two possible choices.. a Creator or accident.
And the idea that matter always existed is just as irrational as God always existing.
So, again, I don’t get your point about what our Creator could possibly be thinking
about His existence.
The fact is we are here. And the other fact is that it isn’t logical for us to be here.
That’s enough to humble the average human being… and then there are liberals.. 🙂
LikeLike
Existence is very strong evidence of a Creator. And due to the complexity, it’s much more reasonable that we were created than everything happened by accident.. from a non beginning of eternal existence.. which is “perfectly reasonable” to believe if it’s matter, but not for an Eternal Being.
I’m just asking questions here: You said before(somewhere and I’m not going back through all these comments to copy and paste) that you believed the Universe to be older than 6000 years based on the scientific data. Am I right about that or did I misunderstand?
Do you believe that humans were “created” 6000 years ago? Or do you believe the human race is older than that? Do you find it reasonable to conclude that humans were “created” in their current form or did they evolve in some fashion?
LikeLike
The fact is we are here. And the other fact is that it isn’t logical for us to be here.
That’s enough to humble the average human being… and then there are liberals.
I’m quite humbled by existence. Not just human existence, but the existence of the vast expanse of the universe. It is quite impossible not to be humbled by it all. But the fact is I don’t believe your God created this so I’m not particularly humbled by him.
LikeLike
There are 2.. God or accident.
And neither one is a logical starting point. -Kathy
If you’re trying to point out how “crazy” it is.. no kidding.. – Kathy
How can you make this statement and then remain so indignant towardt those who don’t believe in your God?
For the record, I’m not really even opposed to the idea of a creator. I just don’t believe that it’s any of the gods that have been proposed. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe if there is a creator that we can know anything about this creator.
But I also do not object to the idea that a Universe has always existed. Not the universe as we know it but it seems plausible to me that, even though our current universe is expanding, there has been at some point and might be again a contraction. The Big Bang only speaks to time and space as we know it. We don’t know what came before the Big Bang. We don’t know that there was nothing.
LikeLike
“what scientific data backs that up??”
What scientific data backs up the fact that there was no universal flood that covered the entire earth 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains? Well, let’s see —
Peter A. Clayton wrote a book with a rather lengthy title: Chronicle of the Pharaohs, The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt (London. Thames & Hudson. 1994).
In his book, Clayton demonstrated that the Egyptian Pharaonic Civilization predated the biblical flood. Clayton gave the following dates for Egyptian Dynasties and their Pharaohs.
• Dynasty 0
3150-3050 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 1
3050-2890 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 2
2890-2686 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 3
2686-2613 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 4
2613-2498 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 5
2498-2345 B.C.E.
• Dynasty 6
2345-2181 B.C.E.
Now Noah’s flood occurred in either 2958 B.C.E. as calculated by the Roman Catholic scholar Euseibus, or 2348 B.C.E. as calculated by Archbishop Ussher and Sir John Lightfoot. We must bear in mind that Ussher and Lightfoot had access to the Gregorian calendar we use today, while Euseibus, who lived in the third century B.C.E., had only the less accurate Julian calendar with which to work, which inclines one to lean more toward acceptance of Ussher’s date, than Euseibus’.
Unless, of course, one sees the irony of attempting to establish an exact date for the occurrence of a fictitious event, as being much like trying to deduce the age of Superman by accurately determining in exactly what year he was born – and failing to see the irrelevance.
Clayton informs us that archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of the above Pharaohs for the associated Dynasties (3150-2181 B.C.E.) and excavations showed no flood layer of silt above their tombs, deposited by Noah’s alleged Universal Flood, or Utanapishtim’s, or Xisuthrus’, or Atrakhasis’ or the primeval octopus’, or any other.
Nor do the records or annals of Egypt – and those guys were anal about annals – make any mention of a universal, world-encompassing flood, anywhere, at any time.
Clayton’s conclusion was that if there had been a universal, globe-encompassing flood in the third millennium B.C.E., there is no evidence of it in Egypt, just a really long stone’s-throw away from the Mesopotamian region where Noah’s flood reputedly began.
In Clayton’s own words: “The absence of the mention of such a flood in Egyptian records and annals, from the same general Middle-Eastern area where can be found ‘the mountains of Ararat’ (where Noah’s Ark allegedly landed, parenthesis, mine), combined with the archaeological evidence from the Pharaohs’ tombs, created before the 2958/2348 B.C.E. flood occurred, reveal that the tale of Noah’s flood is a myth.”
Or, possibly just a myth-take —
LikeLike
Kathy, it seems we are agreed that there is much unknown since we don’t have the original copies. Here are my reasons for accepting the dead sea scroll version:
Deut. 32: 8-9
When Elyon divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of the sons of the gods.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
The entire passage seems to be speaking of Elyon, most high, splitting up the nations, giving them borders and the number of these nations was equal to the number of [fill in the blank: angels, sons of god, or sons of Israel]. What is interesting is that Yahweh is given Jacob (Israel) as his inheritance. Does it make sense to think that the most high was giving an inheritance to himself (Yahweh)? No, usually inheritances are given to a son. Whether this makes Yahweh one of the angels or one of the sons is not really important.
Kathy, if you think it’s outrageous for men to be greedy, lazy or manipulative especially when they are in power.. well, I’ll just leave that up to you to decide. I don’t think we’d be hard pressed to find examples of men like that. If you don’t find it convincing, that’s fine.
LikeLike
Well, at least you are using the word creator instead of God which has a lot attached to it. We also could have been created by accident, like unintentionally created by a deity. Or there could be eternal Creators plural.
LikeLike
Hi Kathy,
Your waffling is below – in your own words. This is just one topic. Please read and clarify your question, because it looks like you’ve been trying to change it.
“You aren’t making sense.. yes, I said I didn’t ask which you believed to be the most true, I asked which you believed had the most evidence.” – Kathy, October 14, 22014 at 4:43pm (open conversation part 3)
Nope, sorry William, this isn’t going to work.. my question doesn’t even ask which religion you think is “divine”. And I just don’t believe you aren’t comprehending my question.” – Kathy, July 30, 2014 (Letter to kathy part 3)
“I NEVER asked for which one Nate thought was true William. Please re-read my comments.. you’re twisting and distorting just like everyone else in order to get Nate out of this dilemma he has put himself in by refusing to apply honesty and objectivity.” – Kathy, july 10, 2014 at 4:29pm (letter to kathy)
“I’m only asking you (REPEATEDLY) to give your opinion on which one you believe has the most evidence to support it’s claimed truth. Every doctor has “credentials”.. aka evidence for their “qualifications”.. but not every doctor is a good doctor or could even be considered qualified despite their “credentials”.. but regardless, there are “credentials” to acknowledge.” – Kathy, july 10, 2014 at 1:43pm (letter to kathy)
““People dying for their beliefs is only evidence of conviction, not truth.”
Also not true. It’s evidence for their convictions but it’s ALSO evidence for the truth of the Bible/ Christianity. If this were a “case” presented in a courtroom before a jury, this would be considered testimonial circumstantial evidence, which is often considered extremely valuable evidence.” – Kathy, july 10, 2014 at 12:24am (letter to kathy)
“And if you can’t name another that has more credentials, then ACKNOWLEDGE that Christianity has the most evidence to support it’s truth or “claimed” truth.. ”” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 11:59pm (letter to Kathy)
All of this is EVIDENCE that CORROBORATES the claimed truth of the Bible and
the existence of God.” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 10:04pm (letter to kathy)
“Yes, while I do claim that you all are ignorant of the reality that evidence for Christianity IS complelling, that’s NOT the ignorance I’m accusing you all of presently.. THAT ignorance would be for deliberately ignoring/ refusing to acknowledge the unopposed FACT that Christianity has the most evidence for it’s truth. You’re getting your ignorances mixed up kc.. which, knowing liberals as I do, that’s perfectly understandable. :(“ – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 5:31pl (letter to Kathy)
“it’s a simple question that requires a simple answer.. which religion has the most evidence aka credentials to support it’s truth or claimed truth?” – Kathy, july 9, 2014 at 2:00pm (letter to kathy)
LikeLike