"In God's Name,,,,Why????"

Originally posted by frogstomp
Aren't we talking about the practices of polytheism ?

It seems like shaking the rotten apples out the Pantheon tree was going on in the OT Israelite conquest of Canaan.,But bear in mind EL was the top apple.

Aren't we talking about the practices of polytheism ?

Yes, I think so--and the movement toward monotheism, marked by the covenant with Abraham. But later, there is the story of Rachel steaing the "household gods" from her father.

It seems like shaking the rotten apples out the Pantheon tree was going on in the OT Israelite conquest of Canaan.

Yeah it does. Proscriptions against idolatry, etc.

But bear in mind EL was the top apple.


🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, I think so--and the movement toward monotheism, marked by the covenant with Abraham. But later, there is the story of Rachel steaing the "household gods" from her father.

Here is a Scriptural Bonus, uncle.

Psalm 82:2, 5-7

God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of
the Gods...The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about
in darkness, and all the world's foundations shake. I declare: 'Gods
though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, yet like any
mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is a Scriptural Bonus, uncle.

Psalm 82:2, 5-7

God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of
the Gods...The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about
in darkness, and all the world's foundations shake. I declare: 'Gods
though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, yet like any
mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall.'

Nemesio

Why, thank you, Nephew. I admit, I have been getting lazy...

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is a Scriptural Bonus, uncle.

Psalm 82:2, 5-7

God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of
the Gods...The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about
in darkness, and all the world's foundations shake. I declare: 'Gods
though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, yet like any
mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall.'

Nemesio

Rationalize it any way you want, Nemesio, but in the Bible El is the proper name for the Canaanite bull god.

Originally posted by frogstomp
can you offer a second god with the proper name God.
I suggest its more about honoring the one true god... you wouldnt give Him the proper name Odin or Zeus , would you.and the Israelites wouldnt have either ,,but still the OT gods name is EL .

No, it's not El. His proper name is YHWH. Reference to that name has been made already in this thread. When Moses asked God's name, did God say El?

Originally posted by frogstomp
In Shorter , I do not need all contexts,, all I have to show is the
use of the NAME EL as the proper name of God., which I clearly have shown.

You have shown, at most, that the form of the words is the same: El. You have offered no reason for anyone to think that the content of the words is identical. There are already OT quotes in this thread which prove conclusively that the word in Biblical Hebrew had a usage other than reference to the Canaanite bull god.

Rationalize it any way you want

Rationalize it? Have you read my posts, or have you assumed that any post disagreeing with yours must necessarily be mere "rationalization" ?

the IsraELites were the people of EL and EL was a bull god.

Not in the Old Testament Hebrew language. Psalm 82 proves that (or, how many Canaanite bull gods were there? ). Tell me, is the word "gift" the same in German and in English? The forms of the words are identical, so you are committed to believing that they mean the same thing. But they don't. In that case you would be wrong, as you are in the case of the word El.

Originally posted by huntingbear
Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]In Shorter , I do not need all contexts,, all I have to show is the
use of the NAME EL as the proper name of God., which I clearly have shown.

You have shown, at most, that the form of the words is the same: El. You have offered no reason for anyone to think that the content of ...[text shortened]... thing. But they don't. In that case you would be wrong, as you are in the case of the word El.[/b]

The OT Hebrew language is the same language as the people that wrote the Ugarit tablets. With the usual alterations languages go through as Latin and German did,
When the Canaanite Mythology was recorded on those tablets.. EL was the father god of the Canaan Pantheon.
These tablets were written before Abraham and the beginings of the Israelite experience with monotheism.
Abraham was born in Ur , but was not a Sumerian , he was a Semite spoke a Semetic language like the people in Canaan.
His offer to sacrifice his son testifies to his polytheist roots.

an aside .... both the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood have roots in Sumerian Mythology ,,, the flood one being far too close to be co-incidental.

There are many non-biblical sources that were written down in far closer to the events timeframes than the bible .

To dispute the fact that the Israelites named their god ,,EL is just as futile as to dispute that EL was the father bull god of Canaan. There just isn't any doubt of either.

and my original question is the only one that needs answering.

Why???

I'd rather not get into a Monty Python .."Is not "... " Is too" kind of discussion or in this case an "I am " ..."Are not"

Originally posted by ivanhoe
FRogstomp: "They offer evidence that the stories of the Old Testament were based on written Canaanite documents as well as being passed down orally."


Can you tell me why these archeological findings at Ugarit cannot be regarded or interpreted as evidence that it could be just the other way around: The written Canaanite documents were based on written or orally passed down stories from the "Classical Hebrew" OT people.

It is quite possible the the Ugarit tablets were written by the same peoples that were passing it down orally.

Oral transmission of historical data tends to variation while data written in stone ( or brick) does not.
It might be well to consider the tablets as a photograph of the stories present state at the time written.

Originally posted by huntingbear
Rationalize it any way you want, Nemesio, but in the Bible El is the proper name for the Canaanite bull god.

Actually you're wrong the bible uses a Northern Semitic name for Baal father ,,,, Dagon who seems to have started out as a wife of Enlil the Sumerian god .. dagon meant grain.

pretty neat trick for the old lady , huh?

Originally posted by frogstomp
The OT Hebrew language is the same language as the people that wrote the Ugarit tablets. With the usual alterations languages go through as Latin and German did,
When the Canaanite Mythology was recorded on those tablets.. EL was the father god of the Canaan Pantheon.
These tablets were written before Abraham ...[text shortened]... ... " Is too" kind of discussion or in this case an "I am " ..."Are not"

These tablets were written before Abraham

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham there is some doubt whether Abraham was a historical figure at all, but if he was he lived sometime in the area of 2000-1500 BC. This would be hundreds of years BEFORE the Ugarit tablets. Doesn't this put a severe crimp in your theory?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
IN God's name, why? Why did you start this thread? In God's name, why do you lament and wring your hands over a decision made probably five or six thousand years ago by stone-age people over what the name of their country is called? In God's name, WHY?

If you can't see the relevancy of it to the present day i would suggest you read that book written by those very same stone age people and learn the proper way to live in the stone age.

Originally posted by no1marauder
These tablets were written before Abraham

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham there is some doubt whether Abraham was a historical figure at all, but if he was he lived sometime in the area of 2000-1500 BC. ...[text shortened]... Ugarit tablets. Doesn't this put a severe crimp in your theory?

Actually not really.
this is from the site you gave,,,, thanks

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.
........... which is something i have asserted

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.


and this
Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

So we get one plausable answer.

Assimilation : but there is another just as plausible one, maybe more so. EL the bull god was the god for both groups.. at that time.

Originally posted by frogstomp
To dispute the fact that the Israelites named their god ,,EL is just as futile as to dispute that EL was the father bull god of Canaan. There just isn't any doubt of either.

Anyone who has read my posts can see, from this, that you have not. I have disputed neither of these facts. If you will not read my posts, then I'm done here. If you want to read my posts and reply to them, then I'll be grateful. Until then, bye.