14 Mar 05
Originally posted by vistesdWhat about translations as God "is"? God in the hebrew said "I am". Perhaps where we're getting lost here is in the interpretation of ancient time relations. I am I was I will be, not eternal, but "I am".
I have read through your citations, and printed some out. As I find this interesting, I will be doing some more research ( I feel a trip to the bookstore coming on!). A couple comments for now, however:
1) The geocities site (“The Major Deities in the Myths of Ugarit” ) states: “The chief Canaanite god is ‘El, which simply means “God,” familiar as one ...[text shortened]... originally “siblings” that developed out of the first-century complex of several “Judaisms” ).
Nyxie
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by NyxieI'm getting a bit tired tonight, so I don't know how clear this will be.
What about translations as God "is"? God in the hebrew said "I am". Perhaps where we're getting lost here is in the interpretation of ancient time relations. I am I was I will be, not eternal, but "I am".
Nyxie
In the Hebrew "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" (I am that I am), the "I" is part of the verb form. YHVH is generally taken to mean the One who is. There is another theory, however, in rabbinical Judaism, that YHVH contains all three tenses (yiyeh, being, I think, future...can't remember the others offhand).
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat is not a necessary consequence. Consider the direct parallel in the English language. Those of us who are theists use the same word, on the one hand, as a proper noun for the one deity, and on the other hand, as a common noun for any particular deity. In our written convention, "God" and "god" are distinguishable by whether the first letter is capitalized. But in a manuscript written in all-capitals, you don't have that convenience. So, especially when natural readings indicate a distinction in usage of the same word for "god" / "God" (it is sometimes specific, sometimes general), you'd be a bit reckless to assume this consequence to which you refer.
it's still unlikely that the god of the 10 Commandments would be called just another god, which is the consequence of using a generic name.
I also find it difficult to believe that Israelite Hebrew would have been identical to the Canaanite language. Clearly they are related languages, of the same family. But Abraham came from Ur, and would have spoken an Eastern Semitic tongue (the family of the Assyrian and Babylonian languages). His family would have become familiar with varieties of Canaanite and other Northwest Semitic languages (Hebrew and Aramaic are languages in this family, related but distinct from Canaanite, Ugaritic, or Phoenician tongues). Presumably they spoke some form of Canaanite tongue, though not exclusively, by the time they emigrated to Egypt (Genesis 46-47). But now you must remember that the Israelite race was in Egypt for centuries. Languages, as you must know, evolve. All you might claim is that "El" is a loan-word from Canaanite. But loan-words don't always retain their original-language meanings. As but one example, the modern English "deacon" is not synonymous with the Hellenistic Greek diakonos, though it is a borrowed form of it. I used to be a diakonos for a living; now I am a deacon. Beside the fact that my work as a deacon is unpaid, the duties involved in the two positions are vastly different. Exodus 20, among other relevant passages, very clearly refers to someone other than the Canaanite bull-god, regardless of whether the superficial form of the word is the same. In short, if you wish to maintain that the content of the Hebrew word 'El' is necessarily identical, in all cases, with the content of the Canaanite word 'El,' then you shall have to provide evidence other than the similarity in the forms of the words.
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompFRogstomp: "They offer evidence that the stories of the Old Testament were based on written Canaanite documents as well as being passed down orally."
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html
http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/PART2/PT2_1B2.HTM
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/majdei.html
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2053
http://www.infoplease.c ...[text shortened]... pt from http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849912.html
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.
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by huntingbearcan you offer a second god with the proper name God.
That is not a necessary consequence. Consider the direct parallel in the English language. Those of us who are theists use the same word, on the one hand, as a proper noun for the one deity, and on the other hand, as a common noun for any particular deity. In our written convention, "God" and "god" are distinguishable by whether the first lett ...[text shortened]... n you shall have to provide evidence other than the similarity in the forms of the words.
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 .
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoemight that be because the israelites left canaan for about 1000 years and lived in the sumerian ( indo european) and babylonian ( semetic ) civilizations and through the transition period between the two.
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 ...[text shortened]... y passed down stories from the "Classical Hebrew" OT people.
The Israelites picked up quite a bit of non-canaanite folklore and some of it shows up in Genesis and in Mosaic Law, probably more too.
I suggest you reread Joshua and afterwards ask yourself " Is this the god that Jesus called Father? "
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by huntingbear"In short, if you wish to maintain that the content of the Hebrew word 'El' is necessarily identical, in all cases, with the content of the Canaanite word 'El,' then you shall have to provide evidence other than the similarity in the forms of the words."
That is not a necessary consequence. Consider the direct parallel in the English language. Those of us who are theists use the same word, on the one hand, as a proper noun for the one deity, and on the other hand, as a common noun for any particular deity. In our written convention, "God" and "god" are distinguishable by whether the first lett ...[text shortened]... n you shall have to provide evidence other than the similarity in the forms of the words.
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.
Rationalize it any way you want ,,, the IsraELites were the people of EL and EL was a bull god.
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompall I have to show is the use of the NAME EL as the proper name of God., which I clearly have shown.
"In short, if you wish to maintain that the content of the Hebrew word 'El' is necessarily identical, in all cases, with the content of the Canaanite word 'El,' then you shall have to provide evidence other than the similarity in the ...[text shortened]... ELites were the people of EL and EL was a bull god.
No, at most you have shown the possibility that El was used as a name as well as a designator, or the possibility that El was originally a name before it became a designator. As I noted, one of the sites you suggested held just the opposite view. You responded that it could have been the other way around.
To say "the use of the name El as the proper name of God" is equivalent to saying "the use of the name God as the proper name of God."
I'm not discounting your whole argument, just saying that you are now arguing more than you have shown (at least in this thread).
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by vistesdok ,,,in the bible as well as Canaanite Mythology
[b]all I have to show is the use of the NAME EL as the proper name of God., which I clearly have shown.
No, at most you have shown the possibility that El was used as a name as well as a designator, or the possibility that El was originally a name before it became a designator. As I noted, one of the sites you sugges ...[text shortened]... gument, just saying that you are now arguing more than you have shown (at least in this thread).[/b]
Baal had a proper name ,,
Astereh had a proper name...
Did they not?
in the Canaanite Mythology EL was the father of Baal..
El's was the "husband"* of Astereh
was he not?
What name does the bible use for EL the bull god ???
* for lack of a better word
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompI still haven't been to the bookstore!
ok ,,,in the bible as well as Canaanite Mythology
Baal had a proper name ,,
Astereh had a proper name...
Did they not?
in the Canaanite Mythology EL was the father of Baal..
El's was the ...[text shortened]... e for EL the bull god ???
* for lack of a better word
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompMy last post got cut off, apparently because I inserted a smiley face at the end of the first sentence!
ok ,,,in the bible as well as Canaanite Mythology
Baal had a proper name ,,
Astereh had a proper name...
Did they not?
in the Canaanite Mythology EL was the father of Baal..
El's was the "husband"* of Astereh
was he not?
What name does the bible use for EL the bull god ???
* for lack of a better word
According to "The Major deities in the Myths of Ugarit," Ba'al means master or owner. Athirat seems to mean lady. We are agreed that such "designatiors" can come to be used as names, even if the word is still used also in it's "everyday" sense. I think we're also agreed that the evolution of a religion can be a complex affair, borrowing strands from different sources, and branching off again, etc.
Can't you imagine a conversation something like this: "This is our El, El." "No, your El isn't the real El, our El is the real El, El!"
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by vistesdIt is , I must admit, a bit difficult to research online.
I still haven't been to the bookstore!
You find mostly religious sites that have the patented disclaiming spin, many El the spanish The sites like El Segundo,, and a few space aliens came from Heavens.
because of these and a few more axgrinders online its better to run a search for Baal then for El
on a somewhat related note here's a site that might interest you.
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/catalogue.htm
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompYes, and see, my background is largely studying the Judaic aspects (not a scholar or anything, just a casual and eclectic student). So that's the only angle I've been able to come at it from. I'll take a look at the site you listed. Thanks.
It is , I must admit, a bit difficult to research online.
You find mostly religious sites that have the patented disclaiming spin, many El the spanish The sites like El Segundo,, and a few space aliens came from Heavens.
because of these and a few more axgrinders online its better to run a search for ...[text shortened]... te here's a site that might interest you.
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/catalogue.htm
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by vistesdAren't we talking about the practices of polytheism ?
My last post got cut off, apparently because I inserted a smiley face at the end of the first sentence!
According to "The Major deities in the Myths of Ugarit," Ba'al means master or owner. Athirat seems to mean lady. We are agreed that such "designatiors" can come to be used as names, even if the word is still used also in it's "everyday" sense ...[text shortened]... e this: "This is our El, El." "No, your El isn't the real El, our El is the real El, El!"
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.