Loomis

You can’t fool us.

If both positions are wrong that still doesn’t mean that YHWH is a real god that flies around on cherubim and blows smoke out his terrible nostrils.

And that is what you are asking us to believe. Right?

Sheshbazzar

Investigation of what the text says, DOES NOT require "believing that YHWH is a real gawd," or believing that He "flies around on cherubim and blows smoke out of His terrible nostrils".
But an honest investigation of the text does require that one admits to what the text says that He is, and does.
"Belief" in the statements and claims of a text, are irrelevant to establishing what the text says.
So, no, I am NOT asking you to "believe" what the the text says, only to refrain from willfully distorting what it says.

In this case the text indicates that Eve and Abram both knew and used the name "YHWH". (irregardless of whether "Eve", "Abram" and "YHWH" were only imaginary characters in a mythological story)
Scholarship and the DH, (as here represented by Pervy) states that the name "YHWH" was integral to that text from the beginning, not added in "latter" as is often incorrectly suggested.

Loomis

Ha ha. You can’t fool us. You had to invent the "DOES NOT require" stuff in order to save face! :wave:

Be honest. The only reason why you don’t accept that Yahweh rides on cherubs and blows smoke out his nostrils is because you feel silly doing it. :grin:

Sheshbazzar

Investigation of what the text says, DOES NOT require "believing that YHWH is a real gawd," or believing that He "flies around on cherubim and blows smoke out of His terrible nostrils".
But an honest investigation of the text does require that one admits to what the text says that He is, and does.
"Belief" in the statements and claims of a text, are irrelevant to establishing what the text says.
So, no, I am NOT asking you to "believe" what the the text says, only to refrain from willfully distorting what it says.

In this case the text indicates that Eve and Abram both knew and used the name "YHWH". (irregardless of whether "Eve", "Abram" and "YHWH" were only imaginary characters in a mythological story)
Scholarship and the DH, (as here represented by Pervy) states that the name "YHWH" was integral to that text from the beginning, not added in "latter" as is often incorrectly suggested.

Loomis

Lookie here Sheshbazzar.

El did not ride on cherubs.

Do you know why?

HE HAD HIS OWN WINGS! :rolling:

Loomis

Do you believe in talking snakes?

Be honest. Just tell us.

You can trust us.

We’re your friends. :devil1:

Anat

OTOH we have several kings of Israel (northern kingdom) with Yahwistic names: Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash. IIRC some of these have archaeological corroboration. Do you think there was a Yahwist cult among the Israelite elite? BTW curious that Ahab, the 'sinner' and Baal worshipper named 2 sons and a daughter (Athaliah) after Yahweh.

Magdlyn

Jeze-"bel" (baal) and her husband Ahab were Asherah worshipers and it is only natural they named male children after (one of ) Her consorts, YHWH.

Back to prev convo, it doesn't matter (to me, anyway) whether YHWH was first, or El(ohim) was. They may have been worshipped in the same time period by different tribal groups. The Garden of Eden is a Yahwistic story from start to finish.

Shesh seems to be ignoring the chapters I pointed out where the name of YHWH seems to be inserted into stories (from another time period, or from another group) to make it appear as though he is the same god as El Shaddai, just by another name. It seems to me the Great Breasted God is an entirely different god than the volcano/war god YHWH.

As I understand it, the present form of the Hebrew scriptures did not take shape unitl the Babylonian exile. There were hundreds of years wherein theological and political wrangling would have managed to syncretize competing god/esses. It is very interesting to see the places where the seams are.

Sheshbazzar

I agree with this view.
Admittedly it does matter to me, for the sake of accurate scholarship, understanding of the history of the text, and to accurately preserve and present the actual contents of that text.
For this, faithfulness to the narrative requires the maintenance of the text that the woman, Eve, was the first person specifically reported as speaking the name "YHWH".
(while some may object on various grounds, that nevertheless IS what all Hebrew copies of the text indicate, without any known exceptions.)
I have addressed this subject in other threads, in summary, Yes, Magdlyn, I agree that "the name "YHWH" seems to be inserted into stories......"
And I also believe just as others here, that the name "YHWH" was inserted into stories and psalms and literature drawn from other, and even opposing sources.

"It seems to me the Great Breasted God is an entirely different god than the volcano/war god YHWH."

Seems the same to me, That however does not give me a license to remove the name or alter the text to conform it to my beliefs.

As an aside, my own congregations, which claim to be exclusively Yahwistic, and at odds with popular X-ian conceptions and ideas, Still engage in the practice of "borrowing" and "adapting" popular X-ian songs and articles by simply doctoring them and inserting the names "Yahweh", and "Yahshua" for what they perceive as being those common worldly "names of blasphemy".
This of course at times makes for some very strange, and inconsistent songs and articles becoming distributed amongst us.
The objections of those who are offended, or see the inconsistency, have never yet been sufficient to stop the practice, at best, the person with an ethical objection to the practice, is limited to refusing to join in the singing of an "adapted" X-ian song, or in the distributing of "doctored" and "adapted" X-ian articles. Syncretisim is still alive and well in the modern world.
I agree with this analysis somewhat, reserving only that the Torah must have existed in substantially the present form from a much earlier period, because it was the contents of the Torah that served as the agent of separating and distinguishing the Israelites from the surrounding peoples, Without the written Torah, the people of "YHWH", and "The Covenant of YHWH" would have had little likelihood of sustainability.
Some of the Psalms however, do show evidence of having been borrowed, adopted, and adapted from earlier sources.
Whether "smoking nostrils" or "talking snakes" anthropomorphism can be taken entirely too literally.

Magdlyn

Sure it does. If Jefferson, Marcion, Tatian could edit Scripture, why can't you?


The author of Chronicles rewrote Samuel and Kings from his own post-exilic perspective.


The Catholics rewrote Esther.

There could have been a few documents, sure. There was also plenty of oral transmission. This is evident in that Orthodox Jews to this day claim YHWH gave Moses the Oral Torah at the same time as he gave him the written one.