Sodom and Gomorrah Discovered

[tabibito]

I gave a translation that showed no YHWY. What you showed is a picture of a tablet with an arrow I cannot read. Need more.

You gave a translation that stands in contradiction of the opinion of a significant majority of experts in the field. And moreover, one for which I cannot trace any support.

[shunyadragon]

You gave a translation that stands in contradiction of the opinion of a significant majority of experts in the field. And moreover, one for which I cannot trace any support.

I am assuming this is the reference you refer to. If this is what it claims yes this refers to YHWY.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele#Text

[tabibito]

As Astour points out, the reference to Yahweh at Soleb is 500 years earlier than the well-known Moabite Stone’s reference to Yahweh, and thus it is by far the earliest non-biblical occurrence of the name Yahweh. Even if Yahweh in these Egyptian texts is a place, it seems nearly certain that such an area, city, or town was named after the Hebrew God of Yahweh of the Old Testament. We thus still would have the earliest references to the God of Yahweh found outside of the Old Testament.

So - Reference to Hebrews and their God dating close to 1300BC, and they were trotting around in Egypt. With argument that the name of YHVH referred to a locality for which no documentation or archaeological evidence can be found. Interesting. Even more interesting, is the reference to that same YHVH in another inscription, for which no reading as a place name is possible.
Yours is an interesting find, Quantum Weirdness.

[Quantum Weirdness]

So - Reference to Hebrews and their God dating close to 1300BC, and they were trotting around in Egypt. With argument that the name of YHVH referred to a locality for which no documentation or archaeological evidence can be found. Interesting. Even more interesting, is the reference to that same YHVH in another inscription, for which no reading as a place name is possible.
Yours is an interesting find, Quantum Weirdness.

I do my best.

[shunyadragon]

So - Reference to Hebrews and their God dating close to 1300BC, and they were trotting around in Egypt. With argument that the name of YHVH referred to a locality for which no documentation or archaeological evidence can be found. Interesting. Even more interesting, is the reference to that same YHVH in another inscription, for which no reading as a place name is possible.
Yours is an interesting find, Quantum Weirdness.

We now have evidence of two gods in Iron Age Judah. El and YHWY.

[tabibito]

Nope. The "El" of the Hebrews was known to them as "El Shaddai". Just a different title for the same god.

Exodus 6:3 “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by My name YHVH I was not known to them. - with a note that "not known to them" seems to be an error. So far, I haven't been able to reconcile this statement with the balance of evidence available in Genesis.

[robrecht]

I gave a translation that showed no YHWY. What you showed is a picture of a tablet with an arrow I cannot read. Need more.

I can read it. It says YHWH (not YHWY).

[shunyadragon]

I can read it. It says YHWH (not YHWY).

Sorry for the mistake. Yes, going back to at least ~1500 BCE one of the Hebrew gods was YHWH

[tabibito]

Sorry for the mistake. Yes, going back to at least ~1500 BCE one of the Hebrew gods was YHWH

I'm inclined believe that this "one of the Hebrew gods" had something to do with the actions of Amenophis around 1497 BC - and while there is (based on pure speculation) an argument that Amenophis all by himself and with nothing to prompt his action, suddenly tried to start up a monotheistic, state sponsored religion in defiance of all prior custom, I'm kind of inclined to believe that something actually prompted his action.

[shunyadragon]

I'm inclined believe that this "one of the Hebrew gods" had something to do with the actions of Amenophis around 1497 BC - and while there is (based on pure speculation) an argument that Amenophis all by himself and with nothing to prompt his action, suddenly tried to start up a monotheistic, state sponsored religion in defiance of all prior custom, I'm kind of inclined to believe that something actually prompted his action.

I am inclined to consider this extrapolated speculation. There is a general trend for cultures to evolve from animism --> polytheism --> polytheism with one supreme god, often with competing gods --> monotheism.

[tabibito]

Aside from the "Abrahamic" family of religions (including Rastafari and Bahai), I can find references to only two religions that are monotheistic ... Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism. There doesn't seem to be any statistical basis for asserting that there is a progression from polytheism (of any sort) to monotheism.

[robrecht]

Aside from the "Abrahamic" family of religions (including Rastafari and Bahai), I can find references to only two religions that are monotheistic ... Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism. There doesn't seem to be any statistical basis for asserting that there is a progression from polytheism (of any sort) to monotheism.

I wonder to what extent one might consider Guru Nanak and Sikhism to be both influenced by and a reaction against Islam. A Sikh colleague of mine, whose father is a Sikh author, says informally that Sikhism combines the best of Hinduism and Islam. I've never studied Sikhism and my friend is not theologically inclined so this may be a very informal characterization.

[tabibito]

I wonder to what extent one might consider Guru Nanak and Sikhism to be both influenced by and a reaction against Islam. A Sikh colleague of mine, whose father is a Sikh author, says informally that Sikhism combines the best of Hinduism and Islam. I've never studied Sikhism and my friend is not theologically inclined so this may be a very informal characterization.

Yep - from what I have been able to find, the development of Sikhism seems to have begun with Buddhism, with a strong influence through contact with Islam.
Zoroastrianism developed in the Middle East, and came into being somewhen between 700 and 300 BC. According to Parsi records, Zoroaster was born around 660 BC. Again, there is a clear presence of an Abrahamic religion long before Zoroastrianism was thought of. So, while Zoroastrianism and Sikhism are not direct line Abrahamic religions, they amalgamate other religions with Abrahamic traditions.

The outcome - even less statistical support for the concept that monotheistic religions develop from polytheistic religions.
I haven't checked all the religions on the list of 47 available, but with the exception of tenrikyou (which developed in the 19th century anyway) all that I have checked stem either from Abrahamic or Buddhist systems, and nothing other than those already noted above pre-dates the 10th century AD.

[shunyadragon]

Yep - from what I have been able to find, the development of Sikhism seems to have begun with Buddhism, with a strong influence through contact with Islam.
Zoroastrianism developed in the Middle East, and came into being somewhen between 700 and 300 BC. According to Parsi records, Zoroaster was born around 660 BC. Again, there is a clear presence of an Abrahamic religion long before Zoroastrianism was thought of. So, while Zoroastrianism and Sikhism are not direct line Abrahamic religions, they amalgamate other religions with Abrahamic traditions.

You're tying too much importance here to the Abrahamic tradition and neglecting the Vedic roots of Religion that are much older. The monotheism of the older Vedic god Brahma(n) may well be the source of A-braham. Sikhism and Buddhism owe it's origins for the most part in Vedic (Hindu) roots.

The outcome - even less statistical support for the concept that monotheistic religions develop from polytheistic religions.
I haven't checked all the religions on the list of 47 available, but with the exception of tenrikyou (which developed in the 19th century anyway) all that I have checked stem either from Abrahamic or Buddhist systems, and nothing other than those already noted above pre-dates the 10th century AD.

You're search is limited. Yes, there are older scripture in the Vedas of ancient Vedic (Hindu) traditions:



As far as Abrahamic origins you can include Ugarit, Canaanite, and other pre-Babylonian writings predate anything in Hebrew and the OT has distinct roots in these writings. These writings show distinct polytheistic origins for Hebrew scripture older then any known Hebrew text.

[tabibito]

Transmission of texts in the Vedic period was by oral tradition alone, preserved with precision with the help of elaborate mnemonic techniques. A literary tradition set in only in post-Vedic times, after the rise of Buddhism in the Maurya period, perhaps earliest in the Kanva recension of the Yajurveda about the 1st century BCE; however oral tradition predominated until c. 1000 CE.

The same applies to Hebrew traditions as we have seen from earlier posts in this thread. The Hebrew people is identified as being in Canaanite or Hittite territory in Egyptian records dating to roughly 1300 BC, and their distinctive religion is attested in those same records. 1300 BC - already an identifiable people with distinctive religious practices. Guaranteed - those practices didn't come out of India.

These writings show distinct polytheistic origins for Hebrew scripture older then any known Hebrew text.

Already been there: henotheistic adherence to YHVH wasn't the only religious practice of the Hebrews prior to the Babylonian exile. Your own posts, the Bible, and the investigation by myself and others all give that same information. Nothing you have provided shows any "development" of a henotheistic religion. No more than there is any line of development in Amenophis' sudden break with tradition and attempt to impose a monotheistic religion on Egypt. That is a bolt out of the blue with no apparent precursor and no known relationship with any prior devotional practices. It may be that later excavations will reveal something of the underlying causes, but as things stand, the most likely cause would be at least something of the events recorded in the account of Moses.

The monotheism of the older Vedic god Brahma(n) may well be the source of A-braham.

I assume you don't like the idea of being taken seriously.