Originally Posted by Maklelan

You're conflating two different roots. The epithet אל*שדי (literally, "God of the Mountains") has nothing to do with the term שדים from Deut 32:17, etc (literally, "demons"). The following discuss the former, but deal in some depth with the latter as well:

Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 52–60.

E. L. Abel, “The Nature of the Patriarchal God ‘El Shadday,’” Numen 20.1 (1973): 48–59.

David Biale,” The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” History of Religions 21.3 (1982): 240–56.

A. Caquot, “Une contribution ougaritique a la prehistoire du titre divin Shadday,” in Congress Volume Paris, 1992 (J. A. Emerton, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–12.

M. Weippert, “שַׁדַּי Šadday (Divine Name),” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 3.1304–10.

Harriet Lutzky, “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet,” Vetus Testamentum 48:1 (1998): 15–36.

“Shadday שׁדי,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Second Edition, Extensively Revised (Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 749–53.

Joann Hackett, The Balaam Texts from Deir ‘Alla (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 85–89.

John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 32–34.

Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 34, 58–59.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2004), 270–82

Yes, it actually is. The rhetorical value of Deut 32:17 is deflated otherwise, and the term is only ever used pejoratively.

This is more metaphysical speculation than etymology or lexicography.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It is often forgotten that the religion of Judaisim was not the originator of these ancient terms and titles, and that they had existed and been employed by other peoples, nations, and their religions long before the first 'Hebrew' or 'Jew' ever walked the earth.
The usages of the Torah, or other Jewish writings do not, and cannot be used to authoratively dictate what or to whom these terms might apply.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Which is exactly what you are attemting to do in the above.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The Semitic linguistic root idioms existed long before 'the Hebrew people' came into being or Jewish texts were composed.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You are now attempting to use the content of those late 'Jewish' produced texts to impose and dictate the range and acceptable usages of terms THAT DID NOT ORIGINATE WITH THE 'HEBREWS' OR WITH THESE 'JEWISH' TEXTS.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Your 'Abraham' the 'Hebrew' was a Johnny-come-lately on the religious scene, the religious terms and titles he employed came from his contemporary non-Jewish cultures.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Usage dictates the referents, not etymology. This is one of the most fundamental rules of lexicography.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

And the meanings of those roots changed drastically over time through usage.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Are you seriously trying to argue that Jews are not allowed to use certain terms to mean what they want because they originally meant something else and that's not allowed to change? Tell me, what formal training do you have in any ancient Near Eastern languages?

Originally Posted by Maklelan

I'm far more aware of where these terms come from than you, and the meanings of words change constantly because of usage. The notion that the original meaning is the only meaning is a punchline, not a legitimate linguistic framework.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

To comprehed terms as they were originally employed, one must be willing to set aside such latter imposed altrations and definitions that arise out of cultural drift.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Exactly. 6th and 5th century BCE Jewish composed texts impose latter ideas and interpretations upon these terms that altered and limited their previous range of meaning.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

'El' of 5th century BCE Judah and 'Jewish Scripture' was no longer the culturally and multi-nationally inclusive 'El' of previous millnia, but one now shackled exclusively to the 'Jewish' form of religion and State.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Jews are 'allowed' to do whatever they damn well please with their terms and texts. Yet it needs recognised that what 'Jews' have done or will do in their reinterpting of these ancient Semitic terms, imposes no obligations upon the rest of humanity or the diciplines of anthropological examination to either accept, or to conform to those 'Jewish' innovations of interpretation or their attempted imposed limitations.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yet those changes of meaning cumulatively distort and corrupt accurate understanding of the original usages.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You choose to 'buy into' these latter 'Jewish' invented altered interpretations and limitations even though you openly admit that you know that they change and obscure the origins and the original extensive and culturally inclusive applications of the terms.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I do not so consider myself obligated to assist the religion of Judaism in the pilfering and exclusionary co-opting of a formerly inclusive religious heritage open to all.

Originally Posted by manwithdream

I don't think the HEbrew Bible shows changes in their beliefs over time because I don't think their beliefs changed over time. That is my opinion, and I don't claim to be able to prove it.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Examine what the Hebrew texts reveal. You say '(you) don't think the Hebrew Bible shows changes in their beliefs over time.'

But the Hebrew Bible clearly reveals many situations that show that large segements of the Hebrew population held to beliefs and practices that the faction which composed the Hebrew Biblical texts forcefully suppressed, quite often by means of mass fratricide.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Of course the beliefs of the Hebrews peoples changed over time, when all dissenting opinions were effectively silenced by extermination those segments of the populace, or were forced into conformity to the demands and extortions of Jewish Yahwhisim at the point of a sword.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The original HEBREW hill tribes were not 'Jewish', and did not practice the 'Jewish' Biblical form of religion.
The Jewish 'Bible' as much as states that fact.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You are ignoring the content of your texts.