The Genesis of the Hebrew God

[rogue06]

My question is does it matter if we get the name right, and the evolution of how this name came to our English language? I think the only thing that matters, as Christians, is the death, burial and resurrection of the Incarnate God, Jesus.

When we go back that far into pre-history, things get really dark and murky. I'm not so sure that God is too much concerned with whether or not we get His Name correct, and get the details hammered out regarding the evolution of the concept of God depicted by various ancient cultures.

This material can get really confusing and it's quite apparent there are many different schools of thought on the matter. We have the Gospels, and I think that should be the central focus.

Do you all agree with that?

Basically, but if some started referring to God as Satan, I could imagine that would be problematic.

[Machinist]

Basically, but if some started referring to God as Satan, I could imagine that would be problematic.

Of course. It's all got be within reason.


All of what I just posted is in a nutshell the response I gave to my friend. I prayed God would give me wisdom in responding to his questions.

Thanks! That pretty much answers things.

[JimL]

Of course. It's all got be within reason.


All of what I just posted is in a nutshell the response I gave to my friend. I prayed God would give me wisdom in responding to his questions.

Thanks! That pretty much answers things.

EL Was the God, the most high God of the Canaanites, Asheroh was his wife, Baal a son. YHWY is also said to be a son of EL, but it may be that YHWY merged with the Canaanite pantheon at a later date with the arrival of Semitic nomads into Canaan.

Abraham of course "who spoke with God, in human form no less" was told to leave Ur an to go there, to Canaan, but at that time the God, YHWY, was not known by name. The name wasn't known until util it was revealed to Moses on Mt Sinai.

So my question would be how did YHWY become one of the polytheistic gods of the Canaanites if the name YHWY wasn't even revealed or known by man until Moses time?

But anyway, as it turns out, the semites were polytheistic, at least to begin with, and each tribe had many lesser gods and a "most high god" which is what YHWY become for the tribe of Judah. They were warrior gods and in the end YHWY won out and became the one and only God, and the second ever monotheistic god.

[JimL]

My question is does it matter if we get the name right, and the evolution of how this name came to our English language? I think the only thing that matters, as Christians, is the death, burial and resurrection of the Incarnate God, Jesus.

I think that for Christians it is of the utmost importance. If it turns out that YHWY was a god of myth exactly as every other state and tribal gods obviously were at time. If it turns out that by his name YHWY was only one of many gods worshipped by the Canaanites, then that would make that god a myth, and Jesus, if we believe what the NT says he taught, that he was God(son of YHWY) then the whole temple of cards fall, so to speak.














[/QUOTE]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Of course. It's all got be within reason.


All of what I just posted is in a nutshell the response I gave to my friend. I prayed God would give me wisdom in responding to his questions.

Thanks! That pretty much answers things.

If you [or anyone else] is really interested I would recommend this as a starting point.

[tabibito]

My question is does it matter if we get the name right, and the evolution of how this name came to our English language? I think the only thing that matters, as Christians, is the death, burial and resurrection of the Incarnate God, Jesus.

When we go back that far into pre-history, things get really dark and murky. I'm not so sure that God is too much concerned with whether or not we get His Name correct, and get the details hammered out regarding the evolution of the concept of God depicted by various ancient cultures.

This material can get really confusing and it's quite apparent there are many different schools of thought on the matter. We have the Gospels, and I think that should be the central focus.

Do you all agree with that?

The problem is that there are so many different opinions about what the gospels actually say; and I wouldn't prioritise the gospels above the other New Testament writings, because the latter will quite often clarify what the gospels are declaring. The process also works in the opposite direction. Mostly the Biblical record is straight-forward if the reader works out what questions a given text answers, which is to say that it will be clear if the reader devises a reading comprehension test based on the text. It is amazing how the answers to the tests are consistent regardless of the readers' backgrounds.
Two things are very difficult though: the first is to get the person to sit still long enough to actually do the exercise. Even harder is to get the person to answer strictly from the text in front of him, rather than drawing on what he already knows.

[Machinist]

If you [or anyone else] is really interested I would recommend this as a starting point.

The problem is, most people don't have the time to sit and do intensive research like this. They just have to go with the popular narrative. There could be something in that book that unravels everything, or nothing at all.

[Machinist]

The problem is that there are so many different opinions about what the gospels actually say; and I wouldn't prioritise the gospels above the other New Testament writings, because the latter will quite often clarify what the gospels are declaring. The process also works in the opposite direction. Mostly the Biblical record is straight-forward if the reader works out what questions a given text answers, which is to say that it will be clear if the reader devises a reading comprehension test based on the text. It is amazing how the answers to the tests are consistent regardless of the readers' backgrounds.
Two things are very difficult though: the first is to get the person to sit still long enough to actually do the exercise. Even harder is to get the person to answer strictly from the text in front of him, rather than drawing on what he already knows.

Why does it require so much homework? Was it always like this?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The problem is, most people don't have the time to sit and do intensive research like this. They just have to go with the popular narrative. There could be something in that book that unravels everything, or nothing at all.

I hardly think one book constitutes "extensive research".

However, very complex issues such as the development of the Hebrew religion cannot be summarised in a few sentences. Concerning your observation on going with "the popular narrative" that can be wildly misinformed on so many topics.

[tabibito]

Why does it require so much homework? Was it always like this?

It sounds worse than it is. Once you've done the exercises enough (ball park figure: 20 - 30 times), you will find that the process comes naturally for the most part, though there are the occasions when it helps to show that you have missed a point. These days, I do the exercises when someone comes up with a concept that runs counter to what I had previously believed, just to make sure. It also helps with preventing a range of types of assumptions that you unconsciously bring to a study from influencing your reading.
The process is particularly useful when someone says "the text says this but what it really means is ..."

ETA: intensive research is best held over until you know precisely what the text of the Bible is actually saying. It helps when assessing works addressing on the broader scale. When an author says "according to the Bible," you know whether the author is properly informed about the topic in question. Again - if you don't know - the reading comprehension test will quickly show any flaws on the part of the author.

[Sparko]

If you [or anyone else] is really interested I would recommend this as a starting point.

I would recommend this as a starting point:

Holy-Bible.jpg?cb=d7c66cda21ffa0b59262145100eec59f&w=1050.jpg

[JimL]

I would recommend this as a starting point:

Holy-Bible.jpg?cb=d7c66cda21ffa0b59262145100eec59f&w=1050.jpg

That would be last, it's obviously agenda driven.

[Sparko]

That would be last, it's obviously agenda driven.

If you want to know about God, the bible is the source document.

[JimL]

If you want to know about God, the bible is the source document.

That is simply what a non critical thinking believer would say. You believe it therefore everything it says is the truth. That isn't how it works, Sparko.
But if you want to know if the biblical God is God, then the Bible, having an agenda, would need be examined through other historical works, archeological finds, etc. The bible of course would be the starting point as you say, because it is the truth of the Bible that is being examined.

[Sparko]

That is simply what a non critical thinking believer would say. You believe it therefore everything it says is the truth. That isn't how it works, Sparko.
But if you want to know if the biblical God is God, then the Bible, having an agenda, would need be examined through other historical works, archeological finds, etc. The bible of course would be the starting point as you say, because it is the truth of the Bible that is being examined.

We know about the BIBLICAL God from the Bible, JimL.

archeological finds (other than documents) won't tell you much other than certain people lived in certain places and built certain things. And any documents about the BIBLICAL God would be based on the Bible. Just like all the books H_A keeps referring to. The authors just add their own ideas and theories to what they read in the, you guessed it, the Bible. Historical works, the same. You can read the church fathers writing, but guess what? They are writing about ...the Bible.