Biblical Contradiction #Three: Which heerser is the creator of the heavens and the earth: Yahweh OR El?

Creation myths abound ter just about every culture that has conceived of a national deity or deities. The ancient Near East is certainly no exception. A vast number of creation myths exist from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan. 1 And many of thesis creation accounts display cross-fertilization of ideas and influences. This is especially true concerning the influence that both Canaan and ancient Mesopotamia exerted on Israelite culture and the emergence of its literary traditions, including the imagery used ter depicting its national deity, Yahweh. The influence of Mesopotamian creation myths on the composition of both creation accounts ter the book of Genesis (P’s and J’s) wasgoed already discussed ter #1. And te #Two wij eyed that both Mesopotamian and Canaanite creation myths depicting the creator heerser, Marduk and Doos respectively, forming the heavens and earth from the creative act of separating and dividing the remains of a slain primordial water tuinslang, had left their mark on biblical writers who sought to depict Yahweh slaying Leviathan ter a similar creative effort (e.g., Ps 74: 13-17, Job 26:12-14). There are a number of Egyptian parallels and creation myths spil well.

Thus an array of deities were viewed and proclaimed creator of the heavens and the earth te the ancient Levant. Such claims, furthermore, often passed ter non-exclusive terms. The voorkeur that Doos created the heavens and the earth, for example, or that Marduk created the heavens and the earth, or El, etc., were not perceived spil mutually special claims. Many of thesis gods collective similar features and functions and were often depicted spil merely contending manifestations of one another—the beauty behind the polytheistic imagination. For an unknown period ter early Israelite culture, when it had not fully separated itself from its Canaanite roots, Yahweh too wasgoed depicted te similar style. Both the archaeological and biblical record preserve remnants of this theistic syncretism. Two

The Priestly creation account te Genesis 1:1-2:Three uses the generic neuter plural Hebrew noun elohim to render its storyline: Aker creates. J’s account ter Genesis Two:4b-3:24, albeit restraining the creation to plants, animals, and the human pair, speaks of Yahweh (yhwh) making or fashioning the things of the earth, and Two:4b accredits Yahweh with the creation of earth and heaven. Additionally, there are other biblical references to Yahweh spil creator of the heavens and the earth, especially te the Psalms and 2nd Isaiah. This comes spil no verrassing. Yet Gen 14:Nineteen, uses this same epithet, “creator of the heavens and the earth,” when speaking about the heer of the mysterious figure Melchizedek, which ter the Hebrew is literally El the most high (’el ‘ely o n). Trio

And Melchizedek, king of Salem brought out bread and wine, he wasgoed priest of El the most high. He blessed him, telling: “Blessed be Abram by El the most high, creator of the heavens and the earth. And praise be El the most high, who has delivered your foes to you.”

The passage, ter its Hebrew, clearly presents El spil “creator of the heavens and the earth,” which is one of El’s epithets. Albeit the Hebrew el can also be translated spil the generic term for “god,” there are good grounds for reading el spil a zindelijk name. For this is not the only place ter the Pentateuch where El shows up (see #27). And spil a growing number of scholars contend, El wasgoed most likely “the original heerser of Israel.” Four

Wij are additionally informed te this bizarre story that Melchizedek is king of Salem, that is ancient Jerusalem. The archaeological record spil well spil biblical passages such spil the one above have confirmed that Jerusalem, prior to David’s conquest wasgoed a Canaanite city and its cultic activity wasgoed centered around the idolize of the high Cannanite and/or proto-Israelite deity El. How is it then, that this story (Gen 14:1-24), whose source is still unidentified by scholars, and which proclaims the Canaanite deity El spil creator of the heavens and the earth, is preserved te the biblical tradition? And furthermore, ter the same story, how can the author also have Abram evidently proclaim that Yahweh is El the most high, creator of the heavens and the earth? “But Abram replied to the king of Salem: ‘I have sworn to Yahweh, El the most high, creator of the heavens and the earth . . .’” (14:22). One reply might be to assert that the biblical record itself is making the bold eis that Yahweh and El are the same aker! Could the biblical text be making such an assertion? And if it were, why?

The inherent relationship inbetween Yahweh and El and the question concerning whether they were conceived spil the same schepper or different gods is addressed te fuller detail ter #27. Here, wij might limit the discussion by shortly noting a duo of other passages that fuel further thought on the topic. Very first, contrary to J’s assertion that the name Yahweh wasgoed invoked, and thus Yahweh wasgoed known by name to the patriarchs (Gen Four:26, 12:8, 15:7), both P and E assert otherwise (see #7). For example, P has the heer of Israel say to Moses te Uittocht 6:2-3 “I am Yahweh, but I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob spil El Shaddai, and I wasgoed not known to them by my name Yahweh!” Thus according to the theological convictions of this author (P), Yahweh did not make himself known to the patriarchs, but instead exposed himself spil El Shaddai, that is “El of the mountain.” Gen 17:1 affirms this same conviction, again from the vulpen of P: “And Yahweh appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am El Shaddai, walk before mij and be impeccable.” J, however, makes no such eis: Yahweh makes himself known spil Yahweh to Abraham. The P narrative thus seems to suggest that the patriarchs knew Yahweh spil the Canaanite or proto-Israelite El—indeed, that El wasgoed Yahweh! Outside the sphere of theology, and more inline with the historical and archaeological record, this translates to the possibility that overheen a period of time ter early Israelite culture, which collective the same material culture spil the Canaanites, imagery and aspects of the maker El were transferred to Yahweh, so that eventually El, known to the patriarchs, become Yahweh at Sinai! Ter the current passage wij either have represented an assimilation inbetween Yahweh and El the most high such that the epithet “creator of the heavens and the earth” refers to the two which are one (Christians like thesis kinds of “mysteries” spil they call them). Or, the text preserves a remnant of an earlier period te ancient Israelite religion when the Israelites recognized and worshiped El spil the creator heerser. Biblical scholars and archeologists alike are apt to choice the straks option here. And spil wij shall see (#27), the biblical record also seems to support this. The ancient tale of Jacob building an altar at Shechem and invoking “El, aker of Israel” (Gen 33:20) is one such remnant. Five Eventually, along this line of reasoning Open Cross suggests rather convincingly that the name Yahweh derives from the Canaanite yahw e which means to create, and thus the name Yahweh “is a causative imperfect of the Canaanite-Proto-Hebrew verb hwy, “to be.” 6 Thus originally the word yahw e might have bot an epithet of the deity El spil creator of the heavens and earth. Ter fact, it is still fairly possible to read Genesis 14:22 ter this light: “I have sworn to he who creates (yhwh), El the most high, creator of the heavens and the earth.” 7

  1. Thare a various anthologies that exist: J. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East. Volume I. An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton Univ. Press 1958), S. H. Hooke, Middle Eastern Mythology: From the Assyrians to the Hebrews (Penguin 1963), M. Coogan, zuilengang, &, ed., Stories from Ancient Canaan (Westminster 1978).
  2. For a more comprehensive treatment of this fascinating subject see especially: M. Smith, The Early History of Aker: Yahweh and the Other Deities te Ancient Israel (HarperCollins, 1990), and W. Dever, Did Maker Have a Wifey?: Archaeology and Folk Religion ter Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2008).
  3. The Hebrew original ’el ’elyon is often translated spil “God most high.” Albeit like the Hebrew ’elohim, ’el can be translated spil “god,” Hebraic philologists contend that a generic understanding of ’el spil “god” is a rather late development ter biblical Hebrew. More accurately, ’el without a definite article is to be rendered simply spil “El,” the name of a pan-Canaanite (by this term I mean to include a proto-Israelite culture) deity—a remnant of an older Israelite/Canaanite tradition to which a few biblical passages still attest. Mention of El is also found te Gen 17:1, 28:Trio, 35:Ten, 48:Three, 49:25. See #27 where this will be treated ter greater detail.
  4. Smith, ibid, 32.
  5. More so see Deut 32:8-9: “When the Most High (’elyo n) talent to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he stationary the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.” The tradition preserved here is an old Canaanite lore. It detaisl when the High maker distributed to the other gods their portions. Ter other words the text speaks of two deities. El, here portrayed spil the “Most high” assigns to the gods ter his counsel their particular peoples. To Yahweh, one of the gods te El’s counsel (see also Ps 82:1, 29:1, 89:6-7, cf. Gen 1:26!) Israel is assigned. Similarly, to the Moabites, Chemosh is assigned (see Num 21:29). See also #27.
  6. F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays ter the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press, 1973), 65.
  7. Cf. Yahweh Sabaoth spil “he who creates the divine hosts.”

Related

#Two. Did Godheid create the heavens and earth from the formless deep OR did Yahweh create them from the slaying of the primaeval sea monster Leviathan/Rahab? (Gen 1:1-8 vs Ps 74:13-17, 89:11-13, Job 26:12-13)

#Four. Is the origin of the Sabbath to be found ter God’s surplus on the 7th day OR the manner te which Yahweh talent surplus to the Hebrews when they were subs te Egypt? (Gen Two:2-3, Ex 20:8-11 vs Deut Five:12-15)

29 thoughts on &ldquo, #Three. Which godheid is the creator of the heavens and the earth: Yahweh OR El? (Gen Two:4b vs Gen 14:Nineteen) &rdquo,

Dear Smack&,Yack–I have waited to see if anyone even knows you exist. Obviously you are being overlooked here. So I will give you a chance to shine. The character you mention wasgoed forcibly liquidated by Dr. DiMattai. So te reaction to your question: From what I read (say his comment on May 22): “In Hebrew there is no present tense of the “to be” verb. There is no written “is”. It is always understood to be there te the setting, almost like an “=” sign. Do you go after mij? Spil the “full disclosure” (i.e. there te the book of Genesis) embarks to unfold for everyone to read and understand, the Creator makes a ordinary statement of truth: YHVH is Elohim.” He is Schepper.

From my perspective his Hebrew is impeccable. His problem here wasgoed his refusal to play the spel. See his last comment on this #Three blog. While he manages to stay on this webpagina for another few months or so, here he is obviously mocking Dr. DiMattai. While that will also obviously prove fatal, I have to admit that I like his choice of music. I have always loved my parent’s “Woodstock/British Invasion” stuff. Maybe I could disagree if he claimed that Bob Dylan, the Jew, wasgoed already converted to x-tianity when he made his 1960’s TV appearance singing “Blowing te the wind.”

But fairly honestly spil a Jew who does know Jesus, watching that song reminded mij of John Three and especially the verses (7-8 if memory serves mij) that talk of wind, and the Spirit, like a breeze which is life (Book of James-read it and find–chapter Five?– where it talks about how wij are like a vapor):

Lynyrd Skynyrd – Call Mij the Breeze (live ’75)

I also recall observing some of my folk’s era TV adult cartoons. There at the end of his comments Sabba AbuShy’s choice of this re-worked Yogi Bear scene is classic. Any kunst work is always interpreted by the one who beholds. I think the fellow’s choice here of this cartoon nonsense wasgoed to compare it to the validity of this webstek and Dr. DiMattai’s perspective and his very first published book. Te other words, Sabba AbuShy wasgoed comparing it to being about the same spil nothing but a bad tour on LSD.

Ok…if Sabba AbuShy is attempting to convert people…he is failing dreadfully. Does anyone even know what the hell he is talking about?

so basically the “yhwh for mij, my god” linksaf back to “if heer will be…”

“The ancient tale of Jacob building an altar at Shechem and invoking ‘El, godheid of Israel’ (Gen 33:20) is one such remnant.”

What’s interesting is that Genesis 33:20 is from the Elohist, but so is Genesis 28:20-21:

20Then Jacob made a vow, telling, “If Godheid will be with mij, and will keep mij te this way that I go, and will give mij bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21so that I come again to my father’s house ter peace, then Yahweh shall be my Aker.

1) Why would the Elohist have Jacob promise that Yahweh, not el or elohim, would be his heer?

Two) Who wasgoed Jacob’s godheid before this?

Three) How could the Elohist have Jacob build an altar to “El, Heer of Israel” after having him promise that Yahweh would be his Heerser? It doesn’t seem that the texts attempt to equate Yahweh and El spil Uittocht 6:2-3 does, because otherwise why have Jacob promise that Yahweh *would be* his heer if the author meant to suggest that Yahweh and El were just different names for the same deity?”

kesseler, i asked ehrman on this and he says that jacob CHOSE yhwh spil his elohim

Bart October 24, 2014

He is choosing which Maker (Elohim) to make his own, and chooses YHWH from among them.

kessler, this logically means, spil you have said, yhwh wasgoed not his elohim before he chose him.

Ricard, Thesis are good questions. I’m not necessarily wooed by Ehrman’s reply, and there are other ways to look at this passage.

Knuckle, source critics observe that Gen 28 is composed of Trio sources: P, J, and E passages. And while the Priestly source is pretty lightly recognizable (vv. 1-9), distinguishing J and E is more challenging. So while verse 20 is traditionally identified spil E, one could draw that assessment into question. However, even labeling this spil J or J/E combined doesn’t lightly response your questions.

2nd, many source critics of more latest times have proposed other models for understanding E material, such spil for example a collection of oral traditions from the north–so not a once separate document spil Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis dictates. So the interplay inbetween voicing fidelity to Yahweh or El that is typical of the cultural setting of the north, might be voiced here te the interplay inbetween using elohim and Yahweh. Levine ter his Anchor Bible commentary to Numbers, discusses the interweaving of El and Yahweh ter the setting of the Balaam pericope (Num 22-24) ter this manner.

Third, this passage might hint at a cultural pantheon such spil that voiced ter Deut 32:8-9, where Yahweh is still seen spil a heer ter “the High Godheid’s” (El’s) court. So the choice is not truly inbetween El/elohim or Yahweh spil if the two were rivaling, but rather a recognition, following Deut 32:8-9 that El charged Yahweh with the protection of the land of Canaan and its people–here seen spil Israel. Spil an extension of this line of reasoning, ter P’s classic text, Leegloop 6:2-3, the Priestly writer is basically claiming that not only is Yahweh El, but for those who ter the past worshiped El and sought El’s protection were truly idolizing Yahweh! This type of theological syncretism may also be present te Gen 28:20-21.

Forward, there is something more happening here at the level of the Hebrew. Ter the original Hebrew, the author composed a chiasma that also doubles spil a pun on words. Jacob asks: “If Aker will be. . .” ( ), which transliterated becomes: im yhwh elohim. And Jacob finishes his vow with thesis words: “Yahweh (will be) for mij my Aker ( ), transliterated: yhwh li lelohim. Or visually:

Then Yahweh for mij my Godheid.

This didn’t come out spil I formatted, but you get the idea.

I just got back from vacation. Congratulations on joining the stratosphere of published authors. Most people can’t read. You can’t do “evangelical Jesus freakism” like I can but who cares? The fact that you have waterput up with mij for so long tells mij about your character and capability to waterput up with strangers: https://www.youtube.com/see?v=ZRAr354usf8

Anyway, please feel free to include any comments I have made. You can waterput them te setting or out. You can stand them on their head if you wish. I don’t care ‘cuz it is not about mij anyway. It is about you, boo boo! (re: yogi bear).

You can even waterput my review of your webstek when I recommended it back te March on my facebook pagina (re: Sabba AbuShy march 23/2015) where I said the following spil I invited people to visit contradictionsinthebible.com:

Bible Contradiction #292 Who comes forward against Balaam spil a satan: an vishaak of Yahweh or…

Dr.Steven Dematti, spil you can vividly see by the title of his webstek, contradictionsinthebible.com, is no stranger to controversy, Take his opening line and some of his other comments for this latest postbode, intending to draw people ter spil he talks about Satan and YHVH from his “higher critical” perspective that will challenge your faith te the Bible: “I throw this one out there for its provocative effect—to permit us to think about the relationship inbetween Trio figures: Yahweh, Yahweh’s vishaak, and satan (literally without definite article, ‘an adversary’). OR: “At any rate, it is significant to note that “Satan spil a zindelijk noun is a feature unattested te the Hebrew Bible” OR: ” this satan took on thesis now seen spil undesirable traits of Yahweh by thesis straks religious thinkers. Eventually he became the Satan of zometeen Christian thinking. But again, no such concept or “Satan” existed te the Hebrew Bible!

Bottom line, if you are feeble te your faith spil a Christian, or a fresh believer, BEWARE! Te fact, stay away. But if you are looking for a place to sharpen the dual edged “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” I invite you to join ter the discussion. Ter fact, the spirited Comments section is very likely the better part of this webpagina and even the more provocative and insightful…AS I DO SAY SO MYSELF! (,

ANY RATE, DON’T THINK I AM DOING THIS TO “BUTTER YOU UP” BECAUSE I WOULD BE FAMOUS LIKE YOU NOW ARE! Hectare! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING! I want my review to make the back pagina, the voorkant of your book! Or at least the inwards pages up ter the front…

That and the fact that I am honestly amazed that you have waterput up with mij for so long, even however I came here sometime towards the end of January. I have only bot here about 1/Two a year and I bet (from your perspective maybe) that it all ready seems like an eternity! (,

At any rate, the last place I called huis wasgoed Samson Blinded http://samsonblinded.org/blog/the-30-party-program.htm and it shows up that since I wasgoed about the “last man standing” that I managed from the time I began during the very first week of March of 2009 until this last postbode by Obadiah Shoher–I have to admit that it looks like I personally managed to just run all the Israeli Jews and those from around the world, either “slap-dap” crazy enough to run them all off–or Obadiah just got too old and just died.

Who knows? Spil this born again jew would say: (well, I’ll let him talk for himself) https://www.youtube.com/see?v=vWwgrjjIMXA

Steve, you’re still a youthfull man. I’m not programma to leave anytime soon. You can use mij spil a tegenstelling if you like, (to quote Elvis: “slander my name all overheen the place, do anything that ya wanna do, but uh-uh honey” don’t leave behind to waterput mij te your book!

Once again with everyone else, let mij give you a heart felt “attaboy boo boo pal!

I hate it when I am coerced to zekering. The point about science and archaeology will be addressed…

KW voiced (and not the very first time by him) a difficulty ter understanding what I wasgoed telling. I hinted that I wasgoed “speaking ter parables” a mechanism that Jesus used and wasgoed intended to reach only those who “had ears to hear”. He wasgoed reaching out to a select audience and there are several instances ter the NT where it is commented that those who wished to demolish him (because of the influence he displayed on the common people, an influence that they perceived vied with their own power and control/influence) realized ter hearing his commentary that Yeshua wasgoed actually speaking about them. Even using them spil a bad example te his training methods which used common, often examples of agricultural skill to portray spiritual truth. And it agitated them even more because he wasgoed obviously “speaking overheen their heads” to an audience avidly listening, thus it talent them an even greater determination and conviction that they needed to demolish him. And eventually they did succeed…until He rose from the dead.

Up until that last phrase about the resurrection, I think you and I can agree.

BUT AT THIS POINT ON THE NEED FOR A SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION NOW TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE ONE Ter THE FUTURE–THE ONE WHICH STARTS Te THE SPIRIT AND HERE AND NOW– you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

But back to Jesus and why I use his mechanism.

Sometimes he wasgoed ongezouten: he called his spiritual adversaries hypocrites. He did so repeatedly ter the very first gospel and yet acknowledged their authority spil representatives of Moses and the biblical authority of Torah at the same time. Talk about contradictions te the Bible!

KW alluded to this te part when he made the statement: “… This is the same man who said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away, after all.” KW, the total quote includes Jesus’ conclusion: “until all is fulfilled”. Steve, KW not every jot or tittle has bot fulfilled and hence the Torah is still ter effect. It still can and voorwaarde be observed, and people do, and like mij, that doesn’t make them Jews or limit them to that category. I am included, no longer excluded. Read Ephesians chapter Two. For how could Jesus tell anyone, then or now, that to inject the Kingdom of YHVH Elohim, that your righteousness “must exceed that” of his adversaries that I described above. Spil I said, he even acknowledged the authority of this Mosaic Torah that he said his adversaries represented, “so do spil they say, not spil they do!”

Steve, elsewhere on this webpagina I have read your comments concerning how unlikely this is to do. Certainly it is unlikely, and always has bot for the basic human nature of dudes, for example to NOT LOOK ON AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN, without even shortly veering off into thoughts of zinnelijkheid. That is unless he/she/it is LGBTBFDS…(,

Jesus’ objective te morality is a much higher standard than that listed for this “do not” category mentioned ter the Decalogue on adultery. Thoughts are one thing, deeds are another, but deeds are enervated by our thought life. So get a life! And te the “for what it is worth” department, that is why Jesus said that to even qualify for the chance to carry out this “mission impossible”, you voorwaarde be born again. Or to use my example of Carmen, “yah gotta know dah code!”

“The argument of “closer proximity” is simply incorrect. People living Five,000 years ago were closer to the creation of the world than wij were, thus should wij take their “knowledge” that the zon revolved around the earth spil true? Skill, thank Godheid, is one of those things that has progressed. Wij know much more today about ancient literature because wij posses more of it and can read more of it… this is just 1 of hundreds of instances were current archaeological discoveries from the world that produced thesis texts has shed light on their compositional natures. Furthermore, you don’t need to pit skill/science against religion, which you are doing here—refusing to acknowledge the skill wij have obtained cumulatively overheen the last century about thesis ancient documents…”

Steve you bring up science here, and archaeological discoveries that shed light and bring revelation and then accuse mij of being ter the mindset that still thinks the earth is vapid. KW, one of the reasons I “speak te code” is that I am refuting a worldview that I find presumptuous, verwaand, and ignorant, and spiritually dead. One te which you can’t intellectualize your way out of it and into the, well let mij quote from Steve here:

“…. Shame “God’s species” couldn’t do anything with the gifts granted them! But I rant here. . .

It seems that humans are not ready to step forward into that abyss, spiritually and intellectually, that comes when wij spil a culture embark becoming fair to thesis ancient texts and recognize their authors’ beliefs and the compositional nature of the text itself spil exposed through a culturally-contextualized reading of the text itself.”

I FIND THAT TELLING, ESPECIALLY THE ABYSS STEVE INSISTS Wij NEED TO STEP INTO TO FIND LIGHT. HE MAKES STATEMENTS LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME.

” And this certainly doesn’t paint the human spirit te any positive light”, HE INSISTS. IT IS FUNNY HOW I AGREE AND THAT IS MY POINT. THERE IS NOTHING POSITIVE FOR US TO WORK WITH. IT Began WITH GENESIS Three AND THE FALL.

I confess, KW, that I wasgoed lampooning GW. You may have missed that, which speaks of your goodness that I like. If I wasgoed going overheen your head, it wasgoed only to reach others. But you spil I and all who read this have this ter common. Wij all have a sin nature…

It’s not even worth reading this comment. Like so many of yours, it fails to address anything that I said, and more so it resumes to fail to address the texts. It’s all about the texts–not straks reader’s beliefs about the text, strafgevangenis your beliefs. But what the texts themselves tell us about their own compositional nature, authorship, beliefs, worldviews, contesting ideologies, etc. But you turn this into a conversation abut mij. Pathetic truly.

OOps! I goofed. Last paragraph should say, “most people DID NOT go this way… my bad.

Imagine that the Flood truly did take place. And that the Bible’s account of it is true. After all, this flood is mentioned ter other cultures, ter fact, I think, te all cultures that were literate.

Anyway, “some sort of higher knowledge” would then include the fact that ter their Mesopotamian cultures, speaking of those alluded to and directly mentioned by the Bible, it would include the fact that they were much closer than wij are to the facts of this incident. That is a higher skill than anything wij with our self perceived “higher intelligence” have, plain and ordinary.

You said, “Why did wij only “discover” them te the last duo centuries? Because people were ultimately willing to acknowledge them. Because they didn’t have to fear being stoned or burned at the stake for pointing them out.”

Maybe it wasgoed more than ultimately acknowledging what you insist is and has bot so demonstrable. Tell Josephus that. I bet he could run circles around you and mij and everyone on this webstek, for that matter. Intellectually, culturally, also being closer chronologically to the mindset that passes for the gospel according to GW that you say has always bot there. His record says, if indeed he wasgoed a brilliant man, and he obviously wasgoed, and over-qualified to be a witness to us of the truth that endures– “where’s the bacon? What no beef?” He either wasgoed aware and dismissed it out of palm, or wasgoed totally ignorant. Failed to acknowledge the truth. Hell, he wasgoed working for your crowd! Yet he didn’t even hint at this “necessary acknowledgment”.

That is your vulnerable intact. No witnesses to this revelation te the observable historical record.

I do agree with you that when with the Reformation, everyone could believe what he dreamed without fear of the Catholic Church searing you spil a heretic or a witch or a Jew or a bible thumper or an evolutionists or naturalist like the originators of the GW theory. It is a theory without onderstel ter empirical reality. Circumstantial evidence that would not stand the court system but be thrown out spil a fraud. I can even give you an example of how this form of (I call pseudo intellectual) thinking actually wasgoed thrown out of court spil a fraud that the thinking process (the GW theory wasgoed not on trial, just it’s method of thinking) wasgoed convicted of by the court.

Not everyone, te fact most people did go “your way”. I have mentioned this a time or two before on this webpagina. Most went mine and the civilized world came out of the Dark Ages spil a result. Your mindset will send us back, if carried to it’s illogical and verwaand conclusion. While you seem like an exceptionally gepast and nice person, your system of theology is pernicious, IMHO.

Sabba, you’re imposing your beliefs and assumptions about thesis ancient texts onto them–-once again–with no concern strafgevangenis care for the historical and literary worlds that produced thesis texts.

Imagine–my challenge to you–that thesis texts were products of their world! and voiced the beliefs, stories, practices, and limited empirical skill of the authors who penned thesis texts. Why is it that their stories, messages, and beliefs are discarded and substituted always by your beliefs about them? So that you can legitimate your beliefs? Fine, and ter fact I understand that. But at the expense of thesis ancient texts, their authors, and their beliefs is something I cannot support.

The argument of “closer proximity” is simply incorrect. People living Five,000 years ago were closer to the creation of the world than wij were, thus should wij take their “knowledge” that the zon revolved around the earth spil true? Skill, thank Godheid, is one of those things that has progressed. Wij know much more today about ancient literature because wij posses more of it and can read more of it than say Josephus could everzwijn had dreamed of. And te certain case wij can actually see how, for example, the author of Deuteronomy, molded his covenant document on Assyrian vassal treaties of the 8th and 7th century, verbatim te many instances! No biblical scholar today refutes this because the empirical gegevens it rests on is solid. Wij simply know! And, barring the author of Deuteronomy himself, this is skill that no one else te the ancient world had at their disposition, not the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls, not Josephus, certainly not Jesus, and not the early Christian church fathers, not even Erasmus and his pals. And this is just 1 of hundreds of instances were current archaeological discoveries from the world that produced thesis texts has shed light on their compositional natures.

Furthermore, you don’t need to pit skill/science against religion, which you are doing here–refusing to acknowledge the skill wij have obtained cumulatively overheen the last century about thesis ancient documents, just because it clashes with–not the texts. –but your beliefs about the texts!

And te general this is done to substantiate–not religion or faith or belief ter Maker te general, all of which I do not write against–but to substantiate your/our culture’s beliefs about thesis ancient texts, beliefs that were carved by readers living centuries after thesis texts were composed and who like most modern “readers” were ignorant about thesis texts’ historical and literary worlds, authors, audiences, individual messages, ideologies, etc.

My challenge: Can you be fair to thesis ancient texts and the beliefs of their authors? That does not mean advocate their beliefs or believe what they do. But acknowledge their beliefs spil their beliefs, and rivaling and contradictory beliefs at that. There is so much excellent and genuine skill about this material available now. So you select to overlook this skill so that you may believe what you want? Isn’t this pitting faith (belief) against skill? And I might add a very primitive or immature view of faith. But if your beliefs about the Bible stand only because you have refused to acknowledge skill about thesis texts then that is what your doing. I might encourage you to have faith ter Schepper, and let the biblical texts be what they are–ancient documents that express the views and beliefs of 60 some different authors. But since you, like many others, have erroneously defined faith te Heerser via thesis texts, you’ve pitted yourself not only against modern skill about thesis texts but also against the texts themselves (which modern biblical scholarship attempts to support) ter favor of a centuries-later belief about thesis texts spil dictated through a zometeen (mis)interpretive framework–“the word of God”–which merely represents the beliefs of thesis zometeen readers. And you have spil of yet engaged mij on this topic which I have repeatedly brought to your attention.

Why is it that that which is implied ter the centuries-later label “the Holy Bible” should wipe out the beliefs and messages of thesis once individual authors? This question can be answered objectively by studying the stages of this theological development and the texts before they were co-opted into this straks framework.

Again, I realize the sensitivity te thesis questions and issues. But I’m still searching for, and perhaps Heer is too (!?), a human species that can be fair to thesis ancient texts and ultimately to themselves. So, what if what wij believe spil a culture is not legitimated by thesis ancient texts written Trio,000-2,000 years ago and which represent the beliefs and views of ancient peoples and cultures? What if what you/our culture believes is vastly different from what thesis authors and the Yahweh of their texts that they composed believed?–which any fair investigate of thesis texts would expose.

Why do wij need to substantiate our beliefs to the point of neglecting theirs and then hypocritically eis that their beliefs and the beliefs of the maker of the texts that they composed are ours? Modern, current, and genuine examine of thesis texts before such zometeen interpretive ideas were imposed upon them exposes that thesis centuries-later beliefs and perceptions about thesis ancient texts are not supported by the ancient texts themselves. “Imagine that the flood is true” ?? You’re already taking the text out of its own historical and literary setting and placing it te yours! That’s like an individual from a different culture, different language, different worldview, and living Trio,000 years ter the future were to say about a fragment of an Metal man movie that survived: “Imagine if this indeed did toebijten, for its author wasgoed closer to the event it purports to speak of.” A foolish example, but it serves my purpose–you continuously decontextualize thesis texts and place them into your setting and belief system, rather than attempting to inject into their worldview and belief system–and not hypocritically believe what they do–but objectively with an fair spirit understand their beliefs and why they believed what they did.

So to come back to my initial query: Here at the crossroads, what is more valuable to you? What zometeen tradition dictates about thesis texts OR what the texts themselves expose on their own terms? You have forsaken skill about thesis texts, obtained through the archaeological excavation and probe of thesis texts overheen the last century, for traditional beliefs about thesis texts forged from positions of no skill. Why vereiste you fetter the human spirit and intellect te chains? Let us spil a human species face, pridefully, the challenges that come from out current centuries skill about thesis texts. And part of that challenge is realizing that part of being human is creating narratives that provide and give meaning to our lives, and life ter general. And it is perhaps human propensity to legitimate thesis subjectively and culturally created narratives by making appeals to divine objective origins and massive authoritative traditions, which when studied on their own expose that they do not te fact substantiate our culture’s beliefs. Wij have created a nation of hypocrites, who evidently choose that the human species wallow te the muck and mire of faith now defined spil lack of skill. Shame “God’s species” couldn’t do anything with the gifts granted them! But I rant here. . .

It seems that humans are not ready to step forward into that abyss, spiritually and intellectually, that comes when wij spil a culture embark becoming fair to thesis ancient texts and recognize their authors’ beliefs and the compositional nature of the text itself spil exposed through a culturally-contextualized reading of the text itself. That wij spil a culture still need to substantiate our beliefs by creating a godheid that, not coincidentally, believes exactly what our culture believes, or hypocritically having recourse to an ancient text viewed through a centuries-later authoritative tradition that “legitimates” our culture’s beliefs by claiming that they are the believes of the author of this text–now Heerser himself! What blatant arrogance frankly speaking. And this certainly doesn’t paint the human spirit ter any positive light. I might say it’s actually fairly pathetic! And this is the same narrative that “Abraham’s seed” on the other side of the globe is doing! And you want to keep the human spirit te fetters? With any fair probe wij can understand this phenomenon and begin to pick ourselves out of the mire and acknowledge that this is part of what it is to be human, and then wij can spil a culture stir into having a meaningful, if indeed disturbing, conversation about this, ourselves and what it is to be human.

Indeed the above narratives are comforting ideas, but worlds away from actually being human, standing erect, and being fair to thesis ancient texts, the tradition that eventually made them into “the word of OUR Godheid,” and understanding ourselves and what it means to be human te this world and the narratives wij create to legitimate meaning for us.

Sabba, it’s difficult to understand you when you use such roundabout phrasing. But I get your point that Josephus wasgoed closer to the writing of thesis texts than wij are, by about Two,000 years. That doesn’t mean that he knew better than us, however. No Jew of the time would have bot inclined to question their people’s holy writings. The seams ter the text have always bot there, but no one dreamed to see them. Why did wij only “discover” them ter the last duo centuries? Because people were ultimately willing to acknowledge them. Because they didn’t have to fear being stoned or burned at the stake for pointing them out.

The secular interpretation of Jesus is that he wasgoed simply a man of his time, perhaps a rabbijn, who believed te the writings of his people. This is the same man who said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away, after all. While he may have had his differences with the Pharisees and Sadducees, he still zealously upheld a form of his people’s traditions. I think you already understand that, from a secular standpoint where one does not assume that Jesus wasgoed divine, there is no reason to take Jesus’ references to the OT spil telling us anything more than what Jesus himself believed. There’s also an alternative way of looking at his references, which is that he wasgoed simply supporting tradition by reminding people of the story of the very first marriage, using the Flood spil a sort of parable te order to make a point, etc.,, this treatment did not require thesis things to be literally true, any more than wij might today use an Aesop’s fable (“Remember what happened to the boy who cried wolf?”) to make a point without requiring the audience to believe that the fable wasgoed a true story.

Anyway, I doubt anyone here would say Jesus wasgoed “dumb” for believing whatever he believed. There’s no point te judging people from a past time for believing ter gods and demons. If I lived back then, I’m sure that I would believe te all sorts of supernatural things myself. But wij simply can’t learn anything about the writing of the Bible from those people of Two,000 years ago, not without proof that they had access to some sort of higher skill than wij do.

Josephus wasgoed a cohen and from royal lineage at the same time. Spil a Roman historian and an accomplished te Jewish religious history, he knew about intrigue ter the royal, priestly, and secular world were he wasgoed, te effect, a not too “hidden” member of what wij call today “the 4th estate: the 5th column”. I share te this sphere (personally, myself: Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and a not too hidden missionary to Israel) and Josephus wasgoed considered by his people spil a sell out. He wasgoed captured by the Romans and when they realized what an “asset” (think ter today’s so called ‘Middle East Intel’ for the 007 concept of that term) they had ter someone gifted ter the capability to research and re-write history, they basically suggested him the chance to live ter luxury and fame while working for them, the resident “Big Brother” of the world that then wasgoed. Or diegene, maybe even crucified on a cross of some zuigeling or other.

I’m speaking ter parables that I think you have the capacity to “feature” (hey dude, can you feature it?:

)). Feel free to deconstruct this spil you see gezond. My point? Poor, over-qualified Josephus, who ter every other way would getraind ter flawlessly with the “power fight politics/backstabbing pragmatism of secular revisionist history” that not only wasgoed overduidelijk nearer our time te your example of the contested author(?) to, among other works, “the “Merchant of Venice”–- BUT UNDOUBTEDLY Predominated HIS Entire VIEW OF THE ROMAN Predominated WORLD–like I said, following your perspective, this boy wasgoed overheen qualified to know something about the Graf/Wellhausen (GW) revelation. After all, he wasgoed much closer to it than wij are. Of course, wij have figured it out and have bot living with this “bible, scholarly” insight for almost 150 years or so (most likely less). But wij are father up the evolutionary chain too. That would greatly balance the scale te our favor even however wij’re about (depending on what exactly wij are measuring here, using the “GW”) somewhere omstreeks 2-3 millennium ter arrears.

So how come this man, of all the ‘turn-coats’ and ‘spooks’ ter the world, turned out to be a bible thumper like mij? Obviously the capability to obscure history and voorkant it tracks and downright deceive the world ter such a brief period of time (ter comparison from then till now–as I said, our day ter which this GW revelation has come to light)–obviously thesis people who are pui and center on this webstek for all insight and understanding to the true message and meaning of the Bible were unparalleled to just “disappear”! And wij voorwaarde be the greatest Sherlock Holmes of all time. Or at least GW were. And they didn’t even have the internet at their disposition! All they had to go by wasgoed their hero! Charles Darwin. Imagine that! Brilliant!

Or let’s take/use the main objective of this webstek, and mention the deception that either Jesus entertained since he wasgoed the Son of Heerser and spil such talented with omniscience and hence “knew better” when he claimed that marriage wasgoed inbetween a man and a woman and “proved” it by quoting from two sources ter Genesis, at the end of chapter 1 and then again at the end of chapter Two. He either knew, like Josephus should have (they were contemporaries) that using Genesis to promote this controversial position wasgoed hypocritical, at the very least te the sense that he failed to let the original author (s) who wasgoed/were greatly influenced, BTW, by pre-existing cultures of the Mesopotamian world ter which the author lived and actually plagiarized his so-called ‘original’ message) “speak” and say what he/they originally intended to be understood. Instead, Jesus, of all people (I mean, He wasgoed YHVH te the skin! And spil I collective with John Kesler –YHVH is ELOHIM!)–and what chutzpa! He either knew he wasgoed misrepresenting thesis two authors (of Genesis 1 and of Genesis Two) by making them seem to be one voice, ter the way he used them to make his point about marriage (see Matthew Nineteen, who very likely only understood this te Aramaic) OR, BETTER YET, he wasgoed just dumb spil a stump and like wij all know te many other examples of a “fundamentalist mindset”, honestly wasgoed dumb enough to think he knew what he wasgoed talking about. Because, Te REALITY, HE Wasgoed ‘INTERPRETING’ EVERYTHING instead of letting the original authors say what they indeed wished to say.

You can believe te him/Him? if you want, but who, of all the people who regularly (or who were attracted by the title of this websit/blog) would?

Sabba, your very first postbode of Five/22 is an elaboration of what you were telling earlier, but it doesn’t address my point that too much time had passed before the creation of the DSS. Yes, the DSS wasgoed a thrilling discovery, and the scrolls are amazingly ancient to us, but at the time they were written, the texts they copied were also exceptionally ancient. A few hundred years back then wasgoed a vast chasm of time, without the clear line of records that wij are used to today.

Today, you can pick up a copy of Shakespeare’s plays te a book, and the text will likely not differ from what you would read te a 50-year-old printing of the same works. But when you look back at the time of Shakespeare, you see incredible confusion ter determining exactly what Shakespeare wrote (and some would say he didn’t write anything at all!). You’ll notice that the article https://plusteken.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Folio looks a lotsbestemming like textual criticism of the Bible, with attempts to understand where the texts came from and how they were conveyed to us, along with variant textual traditions.

If wij have this much trouble figuring out what happened 400 years ago, then wij can’t expect that the copyists of the Isaiah scroll found te the Dead Sea collection had any skill of the origins of the text they were copying. Copyists often did not even read what they were copying, spil it would slow them down, so there is no reason why, if two “Isaiah” texts were combined te an earlier century, wij would expect to see this reflected somehow te the way the Isaiah DSS is physically written.

By the time of the production of the DSS, it wasgoed evidently a fairly standardized text, spil Shakespeare’s writings are today. And by the time of Josephus, even zometeen, there’s no reason to think that Jews understood the origin or time of composition of their ancient texts any more than wij know the history of Beowulf. Many Jews at that time were also estranged, physically, from their homeland, and had their own offshoot cultures. Thus wij see “Matthew”, for example, very likely living ter Syria, and having trouble understanding the language of his OT source while attempting to apply its messianic prophecies to Jesus.

Spil I find time to wade through this and other articles written by Steve, I came across a question from John Kesler:

20Then Jacob made a vow, telling, “If Godheid will be with mij, and will keep mij te this way that I go, and will give mij bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21so that I come again to my father’s house ter peace, then Yahweh shall be my Heer.

1) Why would the Elohist have Jacob promise that Yahweh, not el or elohim, would be his godheid?

When you read back te Genesis Two:Four “in the day that the Lord God…” this is the very first time ter Scripture that this rangschikking of YHVH ELOHIM shows up. Te Hebrew there is no present tense of the “to be” verb. There is no written “is”. It is always understood to be there ter the setting, almost like an “=” sign. Do you go after mij?

Spil the “full disclosure” starts to unfold for everyone to read and understand, the Creator makes a ordinary statement of truth: YHVH is Elohim. This is the same Godheid that Jacob is contemplating. Jacob is making a vow, depending on what happens. It is not very complicated!

KW here are some pull quotes from one of your URLs:

Furthermore, the scrolls did not utterly convert our pic of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of the most significant contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

But te a few cases, such spil where the readings of Deuteronomy 32:43 do vary ter ancient copies of the Hebrew text, it is not fair to say that the Septuagint translators were simply making things up spil they were doing their work. Some scholars are even suggesting that perhaps the Septuagint translators were relying on Hebrew texts that predate what wij presently have ter the standard Masoretic text!

If this is the case, it is fairly possible that the Fresh Wilsbeschikking writers were perhaps more accurate ter quoting the “original” Old Wilsbeschikking texts than what wij typically find today te most modern Bible translations of the Old Wilsbeschikking . Therefore, to charge that the Fresh Wilsbeschikking writers were filthy or fraudulent simply lacks the evidence.

Bottom line: there is a strong possibility that the “original Bible” (a text going back even further than what wij have at this time) has not bot found. Yet, the other conclusion is that, when and if it comes to the surface like the Dead Sea Scrolls did,

IT WILL NOT GREATLY DEVIATE FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS Wij RELY ON TODAY.

My take on the Deut. 32 differences is that it basically concerns whether “gods” or “angels” are juist. Te other words, ter how one comes up with theology: are there indeed other “gods” or are they angels (like all the fallen ones who followed Lucifer/hasatan)?

Anyone can read the point the writer of Hebrews wasgoed making: adore Jesus

KW, I found the material which I saved spil a draft. I went into “over kill”, into superb detail, to the point that my stuff wasgoed most likely considered too long and thus didn’t make it past the “editor”. I submitted the material back ter the middle of March of this year.

I’ll edit it now myself and can bring the points up te more detail but only if requested.

This webstek enables anyone to view and read the entire book of Isaiah. It is on two scrolls. I’m now quoting from my draft: “Go to this webpagina that has the actual Isaiah Scroll on display. Using the search contraptions, go to chapters 33-34. You will clearly see where the two scrolls have actually bot stitched together—the katern with the end of the very first scroll and the 33rd chapter stitched together with the beginning of the next scroll and the very first of it that commences with chapter 34.”

One point I wasgoed making worried the fact that this scroll wasgoed “stitched” together many years after the so-called “2nd Isaiah” is purported to have shown up on the toneel. Yet the natural pauze te the middle of the book (chapters 33-34) and the place where Isaiah 4o commences (the one attributed to another author or two) belies any “textural” evidence. You can see where the “2nd Isaiah” ‘starts’ his material–at the bottom of the pagina!

If, spil the hypothesis goes, there wasgoed another author who showcased up on the toneel hundreds of years before this copy of Isaiah which wij have today sitting te a museum te Israel (which confirms ALMOST VERBATIM that what wij read te our bibles today is Totally ACCURATE–as it concerns this book–and confirms the “traditional way” the Bible is read by people like mij) and hundreds of years after the actual author of Isaiah,

THERE WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF THIS Te THE WAY THE SCROLL Wasgoed WRITTEN.

Alas, for the perspective of this webstek, that is not the case. Ter fact, the guild of people who have this webstek’s view on the Bible, were one of the most vooraanstaand of the worldwide groups (including not just atheists who anticipated the same conspiratorial theories which predominate this webpagina, but also had the ranks of the “bible thumpers” too. Both groups and many others “could not wait” while the Dead Sea Scroll experts patiently took their time with this scroll overheen the years and all the other fragments that were found ter the caves of Quran) that agitated and complained about how long the true biblical scholars back te Israel were taking spil they perused and did their job of not only analyzing but also preserving the ancient manuscripts. If I recall right, it wasgoed somewhere around 40 years or more until the entire world wasgoed given access.

If indeed this 2nd or 3rd (yes, I am aware of your position for just #Two) Isaiah wasgoed not just some pseudo-intellectual construct of the last 100 years or so, THEN CERTAINLY THERE WOULD BE AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THIS PROCESS THAT IS HELD Spil SACROSANCT around here when your little “guild of experts” along with everyone else wasgoed able to probe and analyze the Isaiah Scroll along with everyone else.

But spil I said, there wasgoed no evidence whatsoever. Just for the “bible thumpers” like mij, and so, on this punt, the Wellhausen histiograhers faded into the background for the “proof” they were looking for wasgoed just histrionic.

Like I said, wij could go into this little deeper if you want. But you also have more proof of my perspective from people who lived at the same time spil when this particular scroll wasgoed “stitched together”. Josephus comes to mind. He referenced both Isaiah Nineteen and some of the chapters kicking off after Isaiah 40 “in the same breath”. Te other words, he wasgoed not only Fully UNAWARE of this 2nd and 3rd Isaiah premise, but when he mentioned the 2nd reference, he did so to make a point: Isaiah, according to Josephus, predicted the advent of Cyrus.

Here is how I waterput it, quoting from my draft: “Josephus, eyed ter the erection of a temple and an altar ter Egypt by the high priest, Onias, the fulfillment of “an ancient prediction made by (a prophet) whose, name wasgoed Isaiah” (evidently referring to Isa. Nineteen:19-25) “about 600 years before.” He also referred directly to the Cyrus prophecy of Isaiah 44, 45 and stated that this prophecy belonged to Isaiah. Not the 2nd or the third, just Isaiah. He also stated that thesis prophecies were uttered “one hundred and forty years” before Nebuchadnezzar ruined the temple. Ter other words, since Isaiah actually lived te the mid 800s and wrote into the beginning quarter of the 8th century, thesis declarations from Josephus are significant for two reasons. Very first, they form a part of the universal tradition that wasgoed and still is te place now for twenty-six centuries, established overheen a century before the very first Jewish exile into Babylon. One that understood that the entirety of the book of Isaiah wasgoed written by him. Not him and someone and/or someone else spil well.

I toevluchthaven’t looked at your sites you suggested but I promise I will. Spil always however, my outlook on the Bible is that of learning to know the One who created everything “ex nihilo”, I don’t just blindly believe te miracles, I live te that field spil a missionary and know personally that the prophets are valid for even our day, not just back ter the past.

That is ter stark tegenstelling to this webstek. While reading some of the comments that Steve has made (such spil the purpose for contradictionsinthebible.com being, ter part, to provide a forum for “atheists and theists” to interact) without looking up the precies definition, I would guess that I am here because I’m not even decently a “theist”. Somebody has to represent the vast majority of us who actually read and explore the Bible everyday spil a way of life!

“I certainly trust that you are not earnestly worried about mij losing my faith.”

No, I’m not 🙂 I simply meant that ter the same vein spil my earlier remarks te various places, that being a Christian does not require a fundamentalist reading of the Bible, so thesis observations are not an attack on faith ter general.

” I dealt with the Isaiah scroll specifically and demonstrated from the scroll how the two author idea (others of your persuasion would say you’re wrong—there are at least three!) is bunk. The scroll clearly makes no pauze at the prescribed time for the 2nd Isaiah”

Unluckily I can’t find where you said that, because the Google search results for the webpagina are clouded by our latest comments on Isaiah, which emerge ter the sidebar next to every article. So searching for mentions of the Isaiah scroll comes back every article on the blog, until our comments leave the Latest Comments area.

However, I think you missed the point I wasgoed making that hundreds of years passed inbetween the writing of the texts of the book of Isaiah and the time that the DSS were produced. So wij wouldn’t expect to see a physical pauze te the DSS Isaiah scroll because the texts had already bot merged – only a “break” ter the language and setting of the writings. The observation that the scroll abruptly switches POV is what led to the theory that there wasgoed more than one writer (again, please see that Wikipedia verbinding, if you toevluchthaven’t yet). Whether there were two or three writers is less clear, but the ondergrens number of writers is certainly two.

let mij react shortly to your comment:

” So there wasgoed slew of time for different writings to be composed and eventually merged before the scribes of the DSS everzwijn got anywhere near the Isaiah text. I encourage you to look at the evidence for Isaiah having at least two authors (one of whom could certainly have bot Isaiah himself): http://plus.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship. Slew of Christians have accepted this evidence and still held onto their faith.”

)) I certainly trust that you are not gravely worried about mij losing my faith. I would have to find the postbode somewhere. It is on this contradictionsinthebible.com webpagina somewhere. You’re better at finding your way around than I am and if I didn’t thank you before for your advice on how to find your stuff, which I have used and (it works!), you might use it to attempt and find the postbode I made that I am referring to. I dealt with the Isaiah scroll specifically and displayed from the scroll how the two author idea (others of your persuasion would say you’re wrong–there are at least three!) is bunk. The scroll clearly makes no pauze at the prescribed time for the 2nd Isaiah, spil vanaf this sites’ thoughts on a straks Isaiah. I demonstrate the precies place where the scrolls are physically stitched together and it is totally ter the WRONG PLACE!

Maybe straks (I have a dude coming overheen to help mij build a deck, stairs, and a roof overheen it) I can come back and attempt to find it and waterput it up again here. Feel free to do so if you so choose.

Any rate, gotta go. Good talkin’ w’ ya, guv-nah!

Yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls are very helpful te eyeing how little Isaiah switched overheen some centuries, but they only go back to around the 2nd century BCE. Even the latest date assigned to the original writing of any part of Isaiah is the 6th century BCE. So there wasgoed slew of time for different writings to be composed and eventually merged before the scribes of the DSS everzwijn got anywhere near the Isaiah text. I encourage you to look at the evidence for Isaiah having at least two authors (one of whom could certainly have bot Isaiah himself): http://plusteken.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship. Slew of Christians have accepted this evidence and still held onto their faith.

And while Isaiah may be mostly unchanged since the time the DSS were composed, there are significant variations te other DSS texts from what wij will read te our modern Bible, spil mentioned here: http://jur.byu.edu/?p=3703, and here: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-masoretic-text-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/. An example is the text of Deut. 32:8, 9. This wasgoed the passage which wij previously discussed, and I attempted to demonstrate you how the DSS version of the text referred to the 70 sons of El, one of whom wasgoed YHWH (that discussion wasgoed here: http://contradictionsinthebible.com/genesis-1-not-a-creatio-ex-nihilo/).

you do have the finish Book of Isaiah, just spil wij have it, verbatim, and it is sitting te a museum ter Israel. Dead Sea scroll par excellance! Many other fragments of other OT scriptures were also found. Indicating that what wij have today is what wasgoed written way back te the days of yore…that wij can depend on and live by and be transformed into the very pic of the One who inspired them te the very first place.

I think the question of whether the text is inspired or not, not to mention what it means for the text to be inspired, is a matter of faith. Spil far spil I know the phrase only shows up once ter the Bible and it’s not clear to mij what Paul or whoever wrote 1 Timothy meant by it except that it’s good to examine the Scriptures. Do wij believe that a text being divinely inspired means it is true te every sense and identically meaningful at all times? There wasgoed still a person writing the text, and that person had a background, a point of view, and a reason for writing.

For mij the Documentary Hypothesis is not about those issues at all. I’m not an accomplished on it by any means, but I think it explains a lotsbestemming. I reminisce reading the story of the spies ter Numbers and wondering why sometimes the faithful spies are Caleb and Joshua and sometimes there is only Caleb. Joshua is rather significant, so it doesn’t seem likely the writer would leave behind about his involvement – unless there wasgoed an earlier version of the story ter which Joshua does not emerge. Another thing I wondered about is the Jubilee year. Ter the Pentateuch there is detailed instruction about setting subs free and forgiving debts every 50 years, and yet there is never any mention of such a thing happening that I am aware of. Not only that, there isn’t even a mention of such a thing not happening, spil if the writers of Judges, Samuel, and Kings were unaware there wasgoed even supposed to a Year of Jubilee.

Anyway, I am liking Dr. Dimattei’s analysis even spil I think his polemic against Christians is unfair. I hope he will postbode more frequently te 2015.

Hello again. You mentioned that “while this is raw information I don’t consider it to be skill and understanding because that only comes with the synthesis of the raw information.” Very true. Seeming contradictions ter one passage do not make for coaxing evidence of a large assertion like the one the Documentary Hypothesis makes. But when wij look at different accounts and see unique phrases being used alternatingly spil if by two writers, and can separate the interleaved statements into separate stories that remain samenhangend and finish, it step by step gives more weight to the the hypothesis. I think the entries Dr. DiMattei wrote on the Flood and Crimson Sea accounts were particularly coaxing for mij. Have you looked at those?

“Dr. Dimattei believes that the priestly account is accurate and the Yahwist account isn’t while I view the two accounts spil different but complimentary”

I believe his response would be that he does not view any writing spil more accurate than any other, but simply the product of a different time or schoolgebouw of thought. I am pretty sure he has stated that he is not a believer, so he is not attempting to “pick a side” inbetween P and J – only to illuminate what sides they took, what beliefs they held.

“I have posted my rationale against his very first list of contradictions – 1 a to e which I would appreciate your comments on.”

I don’t truly have any arguments against the point you made there, but I think you may not realize the degree of literalness which Dr. DiMattei is applying to the text when he lists “contradictions”. He is not asserting that thesis contradictions cannot be reconciled by extra explanation, the purpose of the exercise is simply to note that there is a contradiction when the text is read spil stringently spil possible, word for word.

I don’t personally agree with every contradiction that he lists on the webpagina, and I think that some of the contradictions are lightly explained away. But I have found that a larger picture emerges when one takes this treatment, which supports the idea that different ancient writings were being preserved by a respectful scribe whose job wasgoed to edit the writings together into a single lump that would be copied all together ter the future.

“I believe that wij can separate the inspired and uninspired text and books of the Bible, but not without research and careful probe. […] What this instructs us is that finding the truth isn’t spil plain spil picking up a book and reading or attending a church service. Wij have to dig way deeper than that because of the breadth and depth of deception that engulfs the entire world.”

With all respect, this seems to be an unorthodox treatment to the Bible, and a greasy slope. Does the Bible anywhere warn that some of its own scriptures might be false? Didn’t Paul say that all scripture (presumably he meant Jewish scripture, the OT) wasgoed inspired? Or wasgoed this verse a lie someone inserted straks? Would Heerser have permitted his Word to be corrupted accidentally ter order to test people (tegen James 1:13)? Did Jesus say that people needed to diligently examine the scriptures ter order to be saved? Of course you realize that most of those people could not read at all, let alone explore their own private copies of the scrolls. Very likely 99% of all humans who have everzwijn lived were illiterate and had to rely on others to read and interpret for them, so such a message would have bot rather brutal.

It’s true that wij can see evidence that some verses ter the Fresh Wilsbeschikking were inserted zometeen. Wij can see this partly because wij can compare copies of the same writings from different periods to see which parts might have switched. This is not spil true of the Old Wilsbeschikking because those writings are simply so old. There’s no telling how much they might have switched overheen the early years which have no surviving MSS and scarcely any “alternate routes” through which those MSS were preserved by generations of copyists.

Wij do have the Samaritan Pentateuch spil one alternative copy of the very first five books, and indeed wij see some significant differences there, some of which seem fairly ancient and may be the juist versions of corrupted words ter the Masoretic text that wij traditionally rely on. But if salvation depends upon solving the mystery of which text is “correct”, then all hope is lost. What are people to do who can’t read today, don’t have a Bible ter their language, or have no access to information about the original languages of the texts?

I appreciate your comment KW!

I wasgoed astonished with the information introduced by Dr. Dimattei about the possibility of different authorship of the Genesis creation accounts, however te hindsight I see there are some clues like the different references to Aker – one general the other specific, and the different viewpoint – one heavenly the other earthly. While this is raw information I don’t consider it to be skill and understanding because that only comes with the synthesis of the raw information. Dr. Dimattei believes that the priestly account is accurate and the Yahwist account isn’t while I view the two accounts spil different but complimentary. I have posted my rationale against his very first list of contradictions – 1 a to e which I would appreciate your comments on.

I believe that wij can separate the inspired and uninspired text and books of the Bible, but not without research and careful probe. There is so much information available today with computers and the internet, but it needs to be approached with caution because not everything wij read is “the gospel truth” so to speak. I know some source and textual critics believe that the oldest text is the inspired I attempt to assess each case myself to avoid being misled. I have and proceed to use a varied treatment – developing an awareness of which text and books have a higher chance of being uninspired – and testing the doctrine myself against what I see spil foundational truths proven via scripture.

One example of uninspired scripture is found ter switches made to diminish the status of women. 1 Timothy contains the most hurting scripture to the status of women, but there is evidence that the Pastoral Epistles were written te the 2nd century and that Paul wasgoed not the author. If wij combine this with evidence that the verses te 1 Cor 14: 34 &, 35 were not part of the original document of which there is a good summary on this webpagina: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/is-1-corinthians-1433-35-an-interpolation , a major false instructing can be discarded so it doesn’t leaven our understanding of scripture. I am aware of other switches made to support false doctrine which shows us how careful wij need to be.

What this instructs us is that finding the truth isn’t spil ordinary spil picking up a book and reading or attending a church service. Wij have to dig way deeper than that because of the breadth and depth of deception that engulfs the entire world. It’s not like wij weren’t warned that this would be the case spil there are slew of warnings about false prophets and deception te both the Old and Fresh Testaments leaving us with no excuse.

Te the Old Wilsbeschikking Aker warned his people overheen and overheen again not to let their prophets deceive them because many prophesy falsely te his name, but he has not sent them (Jeremiah 29: 8 &, 9, Zechariah Ten: 1 &, Two). Ter Deut 13: 1 to Four wij see that even when a prophet gives a sign or wonder that comes true wij voorwaarde test everything the prophet says to ensure wij keep on the narrow road to salvation and not be lured off to the broad road to destruction. Te Jeremiah 23: 16 &, 17 Yahweh says “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility, They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep telling to those who despise Mij, ‘The LORD has said, “You will have peace “’, And spil for everyone who walks te the stubbornness of his own heart, They say calamity will not come upon you.’” God’s people vereiste have a deep understanding of scripture to ensure they aren’t seeking something that is not te God’s project.

There are many warning ter the Fresh Wilsbeschikking about false prophets that will deceive many (Mark 13:22, Matthew 24:11 &, 24) which is why wij need to “test the spirits” spil it says ter 1 John Four:1. Those who don’t take this advice can unknowingly receive an evil spirit spil Paul warns us ter Two Cor. 11: Three &, Four to not “be led astray from the plainness and purity [of loyalty] to Christ” lest wij receive another spirit “For if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom wij have not preached, or if you receive another spirit, which you have not received, or another gospel, which you have not accepted, you might well bear with him.” Wij can see that those that are “led astray” won’t be aware spil Jesus states te Matthew 7: 21 to 23 they will be telling “Lord, Lord did wij not prophesy ter Your name, and ter Your name personages out demons, and ter Your name perform many miracles? And then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you, DEPART FROM Mij, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ and ter Matthew 15:9 “BUT Ter VAIN DO THEY Idolize Mij, Instructing Spil DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF Dudes.”

This is why wij have to dig deep, read scripture AND plead for understanding because the wisdom of Schepper doesn’t come from any worldly education, but Heer loosely distributes it to those who seek it with all their heart and soul spil they would a precious treasure.

Kate E, I appreciate your rente te getting to the bottom of the matter when it comes to truth ter the Bible. Unluckily, personally I do not believe that it’s possible to find the inspired scriptures amongst the uninspired, separating the wheat from the chaff spil it were. If you look at Dr. DiMattei’s summary of the four theorized sources, J, E, D, and P, te the Essential Reading sidebar, you’ll see that the textual evidence points to different schools of writers with different agendas.

One could argue that perhaps the oldest writing is the most authentic, but the problem with that viewpoint is that, the older the writings wij look at, the more they resemble the beliefs of the Canaanite/Ugaritic culture that the Israelites are considered spil having emerged from. Wij see descriptions of Yahweh spil a limited god-like man, for example, making Adam and Eve by forearm, and spil part of a heavenly council of gods. And the creation language also resembles other cultures’ myths and makes allusions to their primordial creatures like Yamm.

The straks writings, more uniquely Israel’s, and which paint Heerser spil being all-powerful, are actually what modern Jewish and Christian beliefs tend to be based upon, but if wij assume those are the juist passages, then that begs the question of why the straks writings would be more inspired than the earlier writings. The picture that many of us see, when wij look back te time, is of an evolving belief system that switched ter response to influence by powerful nations (especially Babylon), and that became more sophisticated overheen time, but at the cost of re-interpreting the earlier writing ter ways that its writers did not intend.

That’s not to say that one can’t believe te Aker and also accept the Documentary Hypothesis, spil some scholars are ter fact believers, like Tryggve Mettinger, who has written about the evolution of the Jewish concept of Schepper under His different names te the Hebrew writings, but who still counts himself a Christian.

I appreciate your insightful analysis of the possible contradictions ter the creation account found te scripture, and the information respecting the authorship and its implications. Please onberispelijk mij if I’m wrong – te reading this article I get the impression that you consider the biblical creation account to be a myth like the creation stories from other cultures. What do you see spil the true account of creation given the scriptural contradictions and myths?

Personally, I believe Yahweh did create the heavens and the earth and that this is overduidelijk from the absolute awesomeness of it. I believe that the account of it wasgoed vocally spoken of well before it wasgoed written down and thus wasgoed subject to being plagiarized. I believe that Satan, being the liar that he is, would ensure there were numerous accounts of creation to confuse us and lead us to question the very existence of an eternal, all powerful creator. Te Psalm 74:13 &, 14 I believe it is referring to the parting of the sea te bringing the Israelites out of Egypt not speaking of creation, the sea monsters were part of God’s creation (Genesis 1:21) whether they are serpents or whales, and a leviathan similarly means a sea monster or tuinslang. Whatever thesis creatures are, I am certain they were created by Yahweh because everything wasgoed created by him.

With respect to the theme of this article – Yahweh or el – I believe the term “el” is a general term that means strong or mighty and can be applied to guys, Yahweh, and gods te general. For example ter Ezekiel 31:11 it is used ter reference to “the mighy one of the heathen” KJ, “mighty nation” NLT, or “ruler of the nations” NIV. Te Ezekiel 32:21 refers to strong/mighty dudes te the grave which can’t be referring to Yahweh because he is eternal. Te Daniel 11:36 el shows up to be used generally where it says “the king will do spil he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every aker (el)” and to Yahweh spil the “God (el) of gods (el)”. So te Genesis 14: Nineteen where it says “the most high Heerser (el), possessor of heaven and earth” I see the adjective “most high (elyown)” spil confirming this sentence spil being specifically about Yahweh because while there are other gods no other heer is the most high godheid.

I am not astonished that there is a significant amount of archaeological evidence of pagan activity and little of Yahweh’s worshippers because there were so few. Via the entire Old Wilsbeschikking the Israelites would do what wasgoed evil/go whoring, then they were afflicted or demolished, then terugwedstrijd to Yahweh and have a period of peace. If are beliefs require archaeological evidence I’m afraid wij are lost because so few stayed loyal to Yahweh thus there is little or no evidence that he wasgoed idolized. Logically evidence will be found to support popular customs which means the idolize of other gods, not Yahweh.

Wij vereiste be so careful and stay strong spiritually through studying the Word and prayer because there is so much deception ter the world. I have bot looking into source and textual criticism to identify what scripture is inspired and what isn’t and it is very challenging. I am attempting to keep a solid foundation of faith otherwise I fear I will become spiritually lost – exclusief from the very Maker I am seeking to be close to. I can’t emphasize enough the importance of putting all of our questions, concerns and doubts to Heerser so he can bless us with understanding and wij don’t fall away. Be careful children because the deception is broad just spil the road to destruction is, and many will not find the narrow road to salvation.

I just noticed this comment, since I am going through earlier contradictions and preparing the book form of the contents of this webpagina. You ask some interesting questions here. I might attempt a response by drawing on some other older traditions preserved te the Bible (Psalms 29:1, 89:6-7, etc. & Deut 32:8-9, see #27) where Yahweh is still understood spil a heer among El’s court, and specifically the heerser allotted to the Israelite people. So maybe texts such spil Genesis 28:20-12 represent the “real” historic progression from the inhabitants of Canaan adoring El to specifically Yahweh. If this were plausible, then Gen 28 might be providing an reaction to Israelites of how and when did Yahweh become the patron heerser of Israel.

“The ancient tale of Jacob building an altar at Shechem and invoking ‘El, aker of Israel’ (Gen 33:20) is one such remnant.”

What’s interesting is that Genesis 33:20 is from the Elohist, but so is Genesis 28:20-21:

20Then Jacob made a vow, telling, “If Heer will be with mij, and will keep mij ter this way that I go, and will give mij bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21so that I come again to my father’s house te peace, then Yahweh shall be my Heerser.

1) Why would the Elohist have Jacob promise that Yahweh, not el or elohim, would be his heerser?

Two) Who wasgoed Jacob’s godheid before this?

Trio) How could the Elohist have Jacob build an altar to “El, Godheid of Israel” after having him promise that Yahweh would be his Heer? It doesn’t seem that the texts attempt to equate Yahweh and El spil Leegloop 6:2-3 does, because otherwise why have Jacob promise that Yahweh *would be* his heerser if the author meant to suggest that Yahweh and El were just different names for the same deity?

Related movie: iRobot Braava 380t – No standing ovation for this robotic floor mop


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *