Biblical Contradictions

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate these explanations. It helps me to understand how others rationalize biblical contradictions. It really is fascinating to me, the psychology of it all. Everyone seems to have levels of cognitive dissonance they're willing to accept, until a certain line is crossed, and we all have lines. Where those lines are is the interesting part. Please, keep them coming.

For the record, I believe both birth narratives are complete fabrications. The anonymous authors were not present at the time of Jesus' birth, and as such, the detail of these stories is impossible to know, as Mary or Joseph never recorded anything.

You don’t appear to be aware that you are doing exactly the thing you are talking about here in your posts, hanging on to the arguments you favour and brushing off any contrary evidence without looking into it any further.
If you really want to build an atheist’s view of the bible you’d be better off relying on secular scholars who can handle the material. I’d suggest starting with Erich Auberbach (seems to be an atheist although it’s obviously not for me to declare that, but certainly writing from a secular perspective, ethnically Jewish but without any evidence of Orthodox Jewish religious views in his writing) and see where that leads you. Or really get to grips with Bertrand Russell and then compare his worldview with the actual writings of e.g Augustine, rather than just the selected quotes dealt with in his history of western philosophy- get to know the material. Scholars with the calibre of Auerbach put 2 and 2 together and get a qualified 4, Carrier and the like put 2 and 2 together and loudly claim ‘look, it makes 7! It makes 7!’ There’s no attempt at an objective process, no understanding - nothing but the ability to put together a clever sounding argument. The arguments you are relying on are nothing but smoke and mirrors, clever sounding foolishness, signifying nothing.
Here is Auerbach on determining the nature of ancient texts -

It is a difficult matter, requiring careful historical and philological training, to distinguish the true from the synthetic or the biased in a historical presentation...[in legend] All cross-currents, all friction, all that is casual, secondary to the main events and themes, everything unresolved, truncated, and uncertain, which confuses the clear progress of the action and the simple orientation of the actors, has disappeared. The historical event which we witness, or learn from the testimony of those who witnessed it, runs much more variously, contradictorily, and confusedly; not until it has produced results in a definite domain are we able, with their help, to classify it to a certain extent; and how often the order to which we think we have attained becomes doubtful again, how often we ask ourselves if the data before us have not led us to a far too simple classification of the original events!

This realistic approach to the confused and contradictory nature of actual historic accounts contrasts sharply with e.g. Bart Erhman, who, quite bizzarely, simply demands of the texts that they should live up an imaginary standard of his own invention, a kind of mish mash of notions designed to make his own arguments work, that wouldn’t apply well even to more recent events. As an example of how accounts of an event can differ but still add up to a comprehensible whole, adding to rather than taking away from understanding if approached with reason, try reading some accounts of different events during battles in WW1, I can’t remember the names but you should be able to dig some up, there are accounts written by rank and file as well as officers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The speaker in the video is actually a published scholar.

So Luke has Jesus being born when Quirinius was governor. Matthew has Jesus being born while Herod was still alive. There is no evidence that Herod ever decreed all male children under age two be slaughtered.

So, you're still stuck with an impossible timeline.
No actually Ehrman has been rebuked by many actual Biblical scholars mainly for taking a biased view of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not a contradiction. That actually happens often in terms of witnessing perspectives.

Witnessing 1)
I went directly to office after receiving the call.

Witnessing 2)
I went back to office after receiving the call, I stopped by a coffee shop to buy a cup of coffee before entering the office building.

They are not contradictions. It's a matter of focus and perspective. One witness mentioned the coffee stuff because he thinks that part of story shall be included. While the other witness choose to skip it because he doesn't think that the coffee event is with any importance to his story.

Luke chose to skip the baby killing because it's a Jewish story rumored long ago. His focus is simply not on that. Matthew himself is a Jew and thus knew such a story since childhood and would like to confirm what it is after he knew Jesus, as the mass of Jews may have heard the killing but clueless about the motive behind.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
No actually Ehrman has been rebuked by many actual Biblical scholars mainly for taking a biased view of the Bible.

Facts are facts. The motive behind the presentation of them is irrelevant. You can integrate those facts into your paradigm, try to turn them into an abstraction, or deny them completely.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Facts are facts. The motive behind the presentation of them is irrelevant. You can integrate those facts into your paradigm, try to turn them into an abstraction, or deny them completely.
Facts such as?
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
It's not a contradiction. That actually happens often in terms of witnessing perspectives.

Witnessing 1)
I went directly to office after receiving the call.

Witnessing 2)
I went back to office after receiving the call, I stopped by a coffee shop to buy a cup of coffee before entering the office building.

They are not contradictions. It's a matter of focus and perspective. One witness mentioned the coffee stuff because he thinks that part of story shall be included. While the other witness choose to skip it because he doesn't think that the coffee event is with any importance to his story.

Luke chose to skip the baby killing because it's a Jewish story rumored long ago. His focus is simply not on that. Matthew himself is a Jew and thus knew such a story since childhood and would like to confirm what it is after he knew Jesus, as the mass of Jews may have heard the killing but clueless about the motive behind.

I am under the impression based on my studies that the myth hero Jesus existed, and that he may have had followers. However, that being said the parallelism between Jesus and other epics of Gods and legends, etc... is compelling enough for me that Jesus is an amalgamation.

For example we see Jesus in Luke 8:25 he is a master of storms (implicitly) and he controls the storms, goes back to that songs with the lyrics

"I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND
I KNOW THE MAKER OF THE RAIN,
HE CAN CALM THE STORM
MAKE THE SUN SHINE AGAIN
I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND
I KNOW THE MAKER OF THE RAIN,
HE CAN CALM THE STORM
MAKE THE SUN SHINE AGAIN
I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND "

In Canaan, the God Baal does the exact same thing, he is the master of the storms. In Sumer we find that Enlil is the master of the wind. The above lyric and specific Bible verse Luke 8:25 are referring to Jesus as he is master of the storms (he can calm them) and he can even make them rage.

Jesus as a wine God, we see this specific instance at the wedding (wherein Jesus makes water into win), winebibbers are prominent throughout neo-Assyria and even up to the times of Jesus.

You will even see Jesus as having attributes of earlier Biblical heroes such as Moses who uses a rod, in early Christian depictions we see Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead with a rod.

But on a larger scale the NT is an amalgamation of the OT, regardless of the claim "the NT fulfills the OT". The ancient Israelite's who worship YHWH are polytheistic sub structured themselves. Also, YHWH is shown as a Canaanite deity in origin, so when a Christian attempts to explain "Jesus" "God" those are only titles and nominal terms. Even if you were to apply that term as Judeo-Christian "God", then it is only the head of the Judeo-Christian pantheon.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am under the impression based on my studies that the myth hero Jesus existed, and that he may have had followers. However, that being said the parallelism between Jesus and other epics of Gods and legends, etc... is compelling enough for me that Jesus is an amalgamation.

For example we see Jesus in Luke 8:25 he is a master of storms (implicitly) and he controls the storms, goes back to that songs with the lyrics

"I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND
I KNOW THE MAKER OF THE RAIN,
HE CAN CALM THE STORM
MAKE THE SUN SHINE AGAIN
I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND
I KNOW THE MAKER OF THE RAIN,
HE CAN CALM THE STORM
MAKE THE SUN SHINE AGAIN
I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND "

In Canaan, the God Baal does the exact same thing, he is the master of the storms. In Sumer we find that Enlil is the master of the wind. The above lyric and specific Bible verse Luke 8:25 are referring to Jesus as he is master of the storms (he can calm them) and he can even make them rage.

Jesus as a wine God, we see this specific instance at the wedding (wherein Jesus makes water into win), winebibbers are prominent throughout neo-Assyria and even up to the times of Jesus.

You will even see Jesus as having attributes of earlier Biblical heroes such as Moses who uses a rod, in early Christian depictions we see Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead with a rod.

But on a larger scale the NT is an amalgamation of the OT, regardless of the claim "the NT fulfills the OT". The ancient Israelite's who worship YHWH are polytheistic sub structured themselves. Also, YHWH is shown as a Canaanite deity in origin, so when a Christian attempts to explain "Jesus" "God" those are only titles and nominal terms. Even if you were to apply that term as Judeo-Christian "God", then it is only the head of the Judeo-Christian pantheon.
Similar stories with paganism with however major differences doesn’t mean Christianity copied from Paganism. Yahweh was not a Canaanite deity although they may have used similar titles such as Baal El for their gods. As for the New Testament being similar to the Old Testament, the New Testament confirms the Old Testament and claims to be a continuation of it, so there’s obviously going to be similarities.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am under the impression based on my studies that the myth hero Jesus existed, and that he may have had followers. However, that being said the parallelism between Jesus and other epics of Gods and legends, etc... is compelling enough for me that Jesus is an amalgamation.

For example we see Jesus in Luke 8:25 he is a master of storms (implicitly) and he controls the storms, goes back to that songs with the lyrics

"I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND
I KNOW THE MAKER OF THE RAIN,
HE CAN CALM THE STORM
MAKE THE SUN SHINE AGAIN
I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND
I KNOW THE MAKER OF THE RAIN,
HE CAN CALM THE STORM
MAKE THE SUN SHINE AGAIN
I KNOW THE MASTER OF THE WIND "

In Canaan, the God Baal does the exact same thing, he is the master of the storms. In Sumer we find that Enlil is the master of the wind. The above lyric and specific Bible verse Luke 8:25 are referring to Jesus as he is master of the storms (he can calm them) and he can even make them rage.

Jesus as a wine God, we see this specific instance at the wedding (wherein Jesus makes water into win), winebibbers are prominent throughout neo-Assyria and even up to the times of Jesus.

You will even see Jesus as having attributes of earlier Biblical heroes such as Moses who uses a rod, in early Christian depictions we see Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead with a rod.

But on a larger scale the NT is an amalgamation of the OT, regardless of the claim "the NT fulfills the OT". The ancient Israelite's who worship YHWH are polytheistic sub structured themselves. Also, YHWH is shown as a Canaanite deity in origin, so when a Christian attempts to explain "Jesus" "God" those are only titles and nominal terms. Even if you were to apply that term as Judeo-Christian "God", then it is only the head of the Judeo-Christian pantheon.

I simply think that you missed the main point of what Christianity is. Humans determine a truth by the credibility and validity of accounts of testimonies/witnessing. Even science behaves so. Among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99.99% of them don't have the evidence. They don't need evidence to be presented before that treat it as a fact/truth. They'd rather rely on the 0.01% human scientists as the eye-witnesses to get to this fact.

It's never about how similar stories can be. It's always about how the stories were witnessed. The eye-witnesses of Jesus (i.e., 10 out of the twelve) are willing to and have in fact martyred themselves in order for the message to convey. There's no other form of witnessing can be as strong as this. Today we have videos and audio recordings to provide the best support to human testimonies. Nevertheless backing claims with your own life is still the strongest support of a valid account of testimony.
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No actually Ehrman has been rebuked by many actual Biblical scholars mainly for taking a biased view of the Bible.

He's like a homosexual judge presiding over a sodomy case. Not very objective.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Barney2.0
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Similar stories with paganism with however major differences doesn’t mean Christianity copied from Paganism. Yahweh was not a Canaanite deity although they may have used similar titles such as Baal El for their gods. As for the New Testament being similar to the Old Testament, the New Testament confirms the Old Testament and claims to be a continuation of it, so there’s obviously going to be similarities.

Even the term "pagan" is a Christian concept, you very well know this.

Properly, monotheism developed from polytheism, however, yes Yahweh was a Canaanite deity in origin, he comes out Canaan. Yahweh is thusly linked to the Canaanite pantheon, and has many similar characteristics to Baal. Have you not studied this?

Something else to consider, that YHWH is not only seen in Canaan and Israel. Hebrew theophoric personal names do not necessarily give a fair idea of the frequency of the worship of a god and goddess, since many names end up being traditional.

For example, the names of female deities hardly ever occur in Ugaritic personal names, even though we know that Asherah, Anat and Astarte were prominent goddesses at Ugarit. If this was the case of Ugarit, there is no reason why the virtual absence of Hebrew theophoric personal names including the name of a goddess should indicate the absence of goddess worship in ancient Israel.

For example, quite apart from the Old Testament's allusions to Asherah worship, the texts referring to 'Yahweh and his Asherah' found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom, though referring to the Asherah cult object, nevertheless imply a close relationship (doubtless that of god and consort) between Yahweh and the goddess Asherah, since the cult object symbolized the goddess.

The presence of vast numbers of pillar figurines of the goddess Asherah, in particular from eighth- and seventh-century BCE Judah, clearly imply the popularity of her cult.

A further point with regard to goddesses, the occurrence of the worship of the goddesses Anat-Yahu and Anat-Bethel alongside Yahu (Yahweh) at Elephantine, which is most naturally understood as a continuation of the worship of Anat in pre-exilic Israel. As well, both the geographical and temporal limitations of the epigraphic material collected by Jeffrey H. Tigay should be noted. Also, most of the personal names attested epigraphically come from Judah, and it is conceivable that if more material from the Northern Kingdom were available we would find more evidence of polytheism, as indeed is the case with the Samaria ostraca with their theophoric personal names incorporating Baal (in addition to Yahweh).

The Canaanite clearly exist before the Israelite's do, and in fact the Israelite's come out of Canaan, hence the Israelite's are thusly Canaanite. Even Hebrew or modern Hebrew has its roots in Canaanite language and is a defunct Canaan language developed via Phoenician.

Furthermore, OT is explicit in it's aberration from Baal who is a Canaanite deity. You can't really make the argument that Baal and El are general titles, as the OT is specific in segregating worship of Baal from the Israelite's. Yet we see in Hosea 2:16 that the Lord (Yahweh) no longer wished to be called Baali (Baal) and now wants to be known as Ishi.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I simply think that you missed the main point of what Christianity is.

I think this is off topic about missing the point of Christianity, it certainly is a religion. That isn't really an issue, it has some personal relationship considerations such as God to man or man to savior concepts, but this isn't a surprising concept as it has existed since the first dawning of mankind.

Humans determine a truth by the credibility and validity of accounts of testimonies/witnessing. Even science behaves so. Among 100% humans who know for a fact that black holes exist, 99.99% of them don't have the evidence. They don't need evidence to be presented before that treat it as a fact/truth. They'd rather rely on the 0.01% human scientists as the eye-witnesses to get to this fact.

I don't see how black holes relate at all, I get your parallel however.

It's never about how similar stories can be. It's always about how the stories were witnessed.
Not really, the issue being that epics, legends, stories in a relgious sense are told for a reason, the similarties indicate a historical issue (whether contradictorary, or show a pattern following indication). By this very virtue the epics of Gilgamesh must then be true and the epics of Ziusudra then must be true. And if the epics of Ziusudra are true, then you don't have a Noah and an ark epic. This brings me back to my point of similarities, one story can't exist if another story is incorrect. Hence, why Jesus is an amalgamation.

The eye-witnesses of Jesus (i.e., 10 out of the twelve) are willing to and have in fact martyred themselves in order for the message to convey. There's no other form of witnessing can be as strong as this. Today we have videos and audio recordings to provide the best support to human testimonies. Nevertheless backing claims with your own life is still the strongest support of a valid account of testimony.
The claim is that the apostles were martyred, but this isn't the first martydom in history either, so it's a weak claim at best.

By your logic and virtue of what you say the very fact that epics on Gilgamesh, Hercules exist I can then say that by those accounts alone and the very fact that there is writing on the two myth hero' Hercules and Gilgamesh then it must be that they existed. Because the person(s) who wrote about them are a witness.

But, that isn't really the point either. The point is, and I think I stated this beforehand, the conclusion I draw is that there was a myth hero Jesus. However, the epics of Jesus aren't any more true than the epics of Gilgamesh, Ziusudra, Hercules, etc...

Jesus is however popularized by the church, but that is because they had an agenda concerning power, control.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Even the term "pagan" is a Christian concept, you very well know this.

Properly, monotheism developed from polytheism, however, yes Yahweh was a Canaanite deity in origin, he comes out Canaan. Yahweh is thusly linked to the Canaanite pantheon, and has many similar characteristics to Baal. Have you not studied this?

Something else to consider, that YHWH is not only seen in Canaan and Israel. Hebrew theophoric personal names do not necessarily give a fair idea of the frequency of the worship of a god and goddess, since many names end up being traditional.

For example, the names of female deities hardly ever occur in Ugaritic personal names, even though we know that Asherah, Anat and Astarte were prominent goddesses at Ugarit. If this was the case of Ugarit, there is no reason why the virtual absence of Hebrew theophoric personal names including the name of a goddess should indicate the absence of goddess worship in ancient Israel.

For example, quite apart from the Old Testament's allusions to Asherah worship, the texts referring to 'Yahweh and his Asherah' found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom, though referring to the Asherah cult object, nevertheless imply a close relationship (doubtless that of god and consort) between Yahweh and the goddess Asherah, since the cult object symbolized the goddess.

The presence of vast numbers of pillar figurines of the goddess Asherah, in particular from eighth- and seventh-century BCE Judah, clearly imply the popularity of her cult.

A further point with regard to goddesses, the occurrence of the worship of the goddesses Anat-Yahu and Anat-Bethel alongside Yahu (Yahweh) at Elephantine, which is most naturally understood as a continuation of the worship of Anat in pre-exilic Israel. As well, both the geographical and temporal limitations of the epigraphic material collected by Jeffrey H. Tigay should be noted. Also, most of the personal names attested epigraphically come from Judah, and it is conceivable that if more material from the Northern Kingdom were available we would find more evidence of polytheism, as indeed is the case with the Samaria ostraca with their theophoric personal names incorporating Baal (in addition to Yahweh).

The Canaanite clearly exist before the Israelite's do, and in fact the Israelite's come out of Canaan, hence the Israelite's are thusly Canaanite. Even Hebrew or modern Hebrew has its roots in Canaanite language and is a defunct Canaan language developed via Phoenician.

Furthermore, OT is explicit in it's aberration from Baal who is a Canaanite deity. You can't really make the argument that Baal and El are general titles, as the OT is specific in segregating worship of Baal from the Israelite's. Yet we see in Hosea 2:16 that the Lord (Yahweh) no longer wished to be called Baali (Baal) and now wants to be known as Ishi.
There’s nothing wrong with Pagan being a Christian term. Baal literally means lord, so does the Semitic title El. Hebrew actually has its origins in Chaldean and Akkadian according to scholars not Canaanite. Monotheism can’t develop from polytheism any more then an orange from an apple tree, they’re on two contradictory theological grounds unless your talking about Henotheism. Baal literally means that is, My Lord. While Ishi literally means that is, My husband. These are general titles that can be applied both to Yahweh or to pagan gods.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
There’s nothing wrong with Pagan being a Christian term.
Pagan is an insulting term, it's a hick or country bumpkin, will have come about in Rome by the Christians. So not by your standard is there anything wrong with the term.

Baal literally means lord, so does the Semitic title El. Hebrew actually has its origins in Chaldean and Akkadian according to scholars not Canaanite.
The Israelite's do not go back to the time of Akkad, what scholars would even purport this? First comes Sumer (an aggulganative isolate language) then comes Akkad (first Semitic speaking tongue, while Chaldea isn't until about 1000 BC, hence later Ur is called Ur of Chaldea's, but Ur is in Iraq and thusly called Ur. Israelite's first emerge out of Canaan with the patriarch Abraham. Have you not read your Bible? We won't see Abraham in Ur with any Israelite's at all. Akkad is Semitic, but Akkad is not Israelite at all, Akkadians' are polytheistic they are never ever monotheistic in any sense. It isn't until Babylon really that we see Henotheism. Where did you get this?
Baal does mean lord, however Baal is a Canaanite deity, Baal however is forbidden to be worshiped, the Israelite's were not allowed to worship Baal. Check the KJV Numbers 25:3 and you will see what I am going on about. The Semitic title El is firstly found in Canaan, which is pre Israelite.
Where on earth did you get your resources?
Monotheism can’t develop from polytheism any more then an orange from an apple tree, they’re on two contradictory theological grounds unless your talking about Henotheism. Baal literally means that is, My Lord. While Ishi literally means that is, My husband. These are general titles that can be applied both to Yahweh or to pagan gods.

Once again, the Sumerian's, are Polytheistic (the Sumerian's are Pre-Israelite), the Akkadians are Polytheistic (they are also pre Israelite), the Babylonian's end up being Henotheistic and when the Israelite's are in Babylonian captivity (hence, the Babylonian Talmud) it isn't until they leave that they convert to Monotheism. But, even so the Israelite's are firstly structured as Polytheistic. You are just trying to assert that Polytheism and Monotheism aren't the same, that isn't my contention at all, that is obvious. But we won't see Monotheism in Sumer or in Akkad which they will predate the Israelite's. Even Cuneiform writing (Pre Biblical writing) is Polytheistic.

Baal and the characteristics are shown as a storm God, even in Neo-Assyria we see Baal-Hadad to the later Hadad (both are storm Gods). Yet, if you see KJV Numbers 25:3 you will Yahweh not very happy with Baal worship, then per my point in Hosea 2:16 we see Yahweh not wanting to be called Baal. It would be irrelevant of what Yahweh wants to be called, because the assumption is bride and groom with the terminology of Ishi. That isn't the point of this, Baal is forbidden in Numbers 25:3, yet Yahweh essentially admits he is Baal in Hosea 2:16, there is no obsurity in earlier OT texts between Yahweh and Baal, yet in Hosea Yahweh claims he is no longer Baal, yet in Numbers 25:3 Yahweh is angry over the worship of Baal. The cults of Baal spread far from Canaan and the cults of Yahweh mainly stuck with the Israelite's, what is not seen is differentiation between the both. Yahweh is shown as a storm God and so is Baal, Yahweh a rider on the clouds as is Baal.

So the question is, is Yahweh, Baal? According to Hosea 2:16 he admits that he is. Yet in Numbers 25:3 Yahweh forbids Baal worship, because he's angry when he finds out the Israelite's are worshiping Baal. Which leaves the question obscure because of the claims of Yahweh. But, by generalizations Yahweh just means Lord, and Baal means Lord, but we find that both carry attributes of Iškur the Sumer storm God. So by your logic, the Lord forbids worship of the Lord, because both are just then general terms for Lord.

And so you don't think I mean "Ishi" I am aware that Ishi isn't a term (in this sense) until Hosea (though it is used as far back as Chronicles).
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
He's like a homosexual judge presiding over a sodomy case. Not very objective.
Sodomy: intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. I believe this act can also be performed between man and woman. Therefore, your contention "homosexual" is incorrect in trying to directly link acts between same sexes when it happens between opposite sexes.

And don't get confused I am not sticking up for gender.

But, the statement you made is the same as a 2nd grader making a statement and assumption that all horses can talk because he or she watched the show "Mister Ed".

I'm sure you will reply with something cute, but your ill-advised statement is what is most incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pagan is an insulting term, it's a hick or country bumpkin, will have come about in Rome by the Christians. So not by your standard is there anything wrong with the term.

The Israelite's do not go back to the time of Akkad, what scholars would even purport this? First comes Sumer (an aggulganative isolate language) then comes Akkad (first Semitic speaking tongue, while Chaldea isn't until about 1000 BC, hence later Ur is called Ur of Chaldea's, but Ur is in Iraq and thusly called Ur. Israelite's first emerge out of Canaan with the patriarch Abraham. Have you not read your Bible? We won't see Abraham in Ur with any Israelite's at all. Akkad is Semitic, but Akkad is not Israelite at all, Akkadians' are polytheistic they are never ever monotheistic in any sense. It isn't until Babylon really that we see Henotheism. Where did you get this?
Baal does mean lord, however Baal is a Canaanite deity, Baal however is forbidden to be worshiped, the Israelite's were not allowed to worship Baal. Check the KJV Numbers 25:3 and you will see what I am going on about. The Semitic title El is firstly found in Canaan, which is pre Israelite.
Where on earth did you get your resources?


Once again, the Sumerian's, are Polytheistic (the Sumerian's are Pre-Israelite), the Akkadians are Polytheistic (they are also pre Israelite), the Babylonian's end up being Henotheistic and when the Israelite's are in Babylonian captivity (hence, the Babylonian Talmud) it isn't until they leave that they convert to Monotheism. But, even so the Israelite's are firstly structured as Polytheistic. You are just trying to assert that Polytheism and Monotheism aren't the same, that isn't my contention at all, that is obvious. But we won't see Monotheism in Sumer or in Akkad which they will predate the Israelite's. Even Cuneiform writing (Pre Biblical writing) is Polytheistic.

Baal and the characteristics are shown as a storm God, even in Neo-Assyria we see Baal-Hadad to the later Hadad (both are storm Gods). Yet, if you see KJV Numbers 25:3 you will Yahweh not very happy with Baal worship, then per my point in Hosea 2:16 we see Yahweh not wanting to be called Baal. It would be irrelevant of what Yahweh wants to be called, because the assumption is bride and groom with the terminology of Ishi. That isn't the point of this, Baal is forbidden in Numbers 25:3, yet Yahweh essentially admits he is Baal in Hosea 2:16, there is no obsurity in earlier OT texts between Yahweh and Baal, yet in Hosea Yahweh claims he is no longer Baal, yet in Numbers 25:3 Yahweh is angry over the worship of Baal. The cults of Baal spread far from Canaan and the cults of Yahweh mainly stuck with the Israelite's, what is not seen is differentiation between the both. Yahweh is shown as a storm God and so is Baal, Yahweh a rider on the clouds as is Baal.

So the question is, is Yahweh, Baal? According to Hosea 2:16 he admits that he is. Yet in Numbers 25:3 Yahweh forbids Baal worship, because he's angry when he finds out the Israelite's are worshiping Baal. Which leaves the question obscure because of the claims of Yahweh. But, by generalizations Yahweh just means Lord, and Baal means Lord, but we find that both carry attributes of Iškur the Sumer storm God. So by your logic, the Lord forbids worship of the Lord, because both are just then general terms for Lord.

And so you don't think I mean "Ishi" I am aware that Ishi isn't a term (in this sense) until Hosea (though it is used as far back as Chronicles).
Pagan isn’t offensive, infidel would be offensive. Abraham was from Chaldea, he only much later settled in Canaan. Hebrew developed from Chaldean and Akkadian as the languages are closely related. Baal Hadad is a literal term for a deity, but the term Baal means lord. Both are general terms meaning Lord, it can also be used to reffer to false gods, Baal was also used to reffer to false gods. Yahweh forbids the worship of the Canaanite God Baal Haddad, but he accepts being called Baal (Lord).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
El.jpg

To this post I have posted a surviving image of El as an idol and who is the God the Hebrews used as the basis for their later Yahwism and also in taking the name El which is a proper name as well as a word for a God regardless of ancient Semitic languages.

El or Elu or Ilu whom was called and associated with Daganu whom was an epithet of Ilu \Elu.


Pagan isn’t offensive, infidel would be offensive.
Infidel is just a a person who does not believe in religion, that is the standard for that.

However, "pagan" is a historically inaccurate phrase, it was generally coined in Rome when someone would not be converted to Christianity. That person would be called a "pagan", at least by virtue of the Christian.

A pagan is a hick or country bumpkin, if you mean not insulting to be called a hick, then by definition it is a person who lives in the country, regarded as being unintelligent or provincial, I would call that insulting.

Abraham was from Chaldea, he only much later settled in Canaan.
The 'original' name of the patriarch 'abram belongs to the common stock of West Semitic names known since the beginning of the second millennium BCE (2000 BC). It is a contracted form of 'iibiram (HALAT 9; DE VAUX 1968:11; I Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrn in Ugarit (KTU 4.352:2,4 =IA-bi-ra-mul;; PRU 3,20; 5,85:10: 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. HUFFMO AbraJuim is an extended form of 'abram. The extension is rather due to reverence and distinction than dialectic variance.

In historical times, tradition-enfirmed by folkloristic etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7)-knew the patriach only by his name 'abraJuim (Mic 7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.).

At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities, or in terms of astral myth, particularly Abrnham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran).-Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah).

Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuch traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places Abraham has an important place as far as gender law is considered in the ancient Hebraic sense, as the wife has limited jurisdiction and Sarah has to get authority from Abraham to chastise Hagar. Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization.

Hebrew developed from Chaldean and Akkadian as the languages are closely related.

The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Just a little on the languages themselves, Akkadian language is about 2500 BC, Canaan language is about 1400 BC, and Chaldean is about 1000 BC, while Hebrew is about 1000 BC. All those language are Semitic and related, so when you state that Hebrew developed from Chaldean and Akkadian you then make the assumption that it exclusively developed from those languages which is not a true statement at all. Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language, and it belongs to the Canaanite family of languages. Also, copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities.

Also, to your misleading statement of Abraham coming from Chaldea. It would have been the Proto Chaldean' that dwelled in Sumer by the time of the Patriarch Abraham. Bringing me back to my point, Abraham comes from Mesopotamia (if he did exist at all), which in the Hebrew Bible is called Ur Kaśdim or Ur of Chaldeas. I think this is where you get that reference from, but it is inaccurate at best, from what I have posted above. The early Biblical writings will reflect the writings of Moses (and it may have actually been Yahwehists who penned the Pentautech). Assumedly, it would be hard to keep from oral tradition to writ a total accuracies of events.

Abraham if he did enter in Canaan (and he did according to the OT) essentially then he would have to speak (or learn) Canaanite language, and thusly Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic Canaanite tongue (feel free to research this). Also, Semitic is not an isolate language, but Sumerian is. In fact the people of Akkad will have borrowed from Sumer to make the first Semitic tongue. With exception to groups like the Hittite's who are Indo-Euro this is clearly evident with the peace treaty between the Hittite's and the Egyptian's in 1200 BC.


Baal Hadad is a literal term for a deity, but the term Baal means lord. Both are general terms meaning Lord, it can also be used to reffer to false gods, Baal was also used to reffer to false gods. Yahweh forbids the worship of the Canaanite God Baal Haddad, but he accepts being called Baal (Lord).
Hadad is Haddu from Ugarit and the much earlier form is Iskur from Sumer.

Baal in the Bible is not going to be referred to as Baal-Hadad in any form as a deity. Also, generally for example Baal-Hadad will indicate royalty such as Baal-Hanan to represent a king in Gen 36: 38-39, this is generally the designations, as most names are titles in those times. Baal-Hadad btw is a king in Neo Assyria, not a deity.

While Yahweh and Baal are terms for "Lord" they are specific designations in each culture. The Israelite's and the Canaanite's will worship both, which is evident in Biblical literature. Hence, your point makes no sense, please clarify. As well Baal is going to be a false God or Baal is Yahweh, it isn't designated at a time of convenience. Once again where did you get this research from?

The God Baal has a specific function as a storm God, much like Yahweh has a specific function as a storm God, both are storm Gods, in earlier Israelite and Ugaritic and Canaanite mythologies. An element in Baal’s meteorological entourage in KTU 1.5 V 6-11.342 Psalm 77:19 refers to the wheels in Yahweh’s storm theophany, which presumes a divine war chariot. Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):11 presents Yahweh riding on the wind surrounded by storm clouds. This image forms the basis for the description of the divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 and 10. Psalm 65:12 (E 11) likewise presupposes the storm-chariot image: “You crown your bounteous year, and your tracks drip with fatness.” Similarly, Yahweh’s storm chariot is the image presumed by Habakkuk 3:8 and 15. The description of Yahweh’s horses fits into the larger context of the storm theophany directed against the cosmic enemies, Sea and River. (The horses in this verse are unrelated to the horses dedicated to the sun in 2 Kings 23:11, unless there was a coalescence of the chariot imagery of the storm and the sun ) The motif of chariot-riding storm-god with his divine entourage extends in Israelite tradition to the divine armies of Yahweh riding on chariots with horses (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17). Other features originally attributed to Baal also accrued to Yahweh. Albright and other scholars 344 have argued the epithet ‘ly, “the Most High,” belonging to Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4’), appears as a title of Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and 68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25), in the biblical hypocoristicon ‘ē/î, the name of the priest of Shiloh,345 and in Hebrew inscriptional personal names yhw‘ly, “Yahu is Most High,” yw‘ly, “Yaw is Most High,” ̔lyhw, “Most High is Yahu,” and ‘lyw, “Most High is Yaw.” The bull iconography that Jeroboam I sponsored in Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-31) has been attributed to the influence of Baal in the northern kingdom. This imagery represented an old northern tradition of divine iconography for Yahweh used probably as a rival symbol to the traditional royal iconography of the cherubim of the Jerusalem temple. The old northern tradition of bull iconography for Yahweh is reflected in the name ‘glyw, which may be translated, “Young bull is Yaw,” in Samaria ostracon 41:1.348 The ca. twelfth-century bull figurine discovered at a site in the hill country of Ephraim and the young bull depicted on the tenth-century Taanach stand likewise involve the iconography of a god, either Yahweh or Baal. 349 Newer discoveries have yielded iconography of a deity on a bull on a ninth-century plaque from Dan and an eighth-century stele from Bethsaida.

Indeed, evidence for Yahweh as bull appears in Amherst Papyrus 63 (column XI): “Horus-Yaho, our bull is with us. May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow.” Despite later syncretism with Horus, the text apparently preserves a prayer to Yahweh in his emblem-animal as a bull invoked as the patron-god of Bethel. The further question is whether these depictions were specific to either El or Baal (or both) in the Iron Age. The language has been thought also to derive from El, frequently called “bull” (tr) in the Ugaritic texts. There is some evidence pointing to the application of this iconography to El in the IronAge.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
View attachment 231108
To this post I have posted a surviving image of El as an idol and who is the God the Hebrews used as the basis for their later Yahwism and also in taking the name El which is a proper name as well as a word for a God regardless of ancient Semitic languages.

El or Elu or Ilu whom was called and associated with Daganu whom was an epithet of Ilu \Elu.


Infidel is just a a person who does not believe in religion, that is the standard for that.

However, "pagan" is a historically inaccurate phrase, it was generally coined in Rome when someone would not be converted to Christianity. That person would be called a "pagan", at least by virtue of the Christian.

A pagan is a hick or country bumpkin, if you mean not insulting to be called a hick, then by definition it is a person who lives in the country, regarded as being unintelligent or provincial, I would call that insulting.

The 'original' name of the patriarch 'abram belongs to the common stock of West Semitic names known since the beginning of the second millennium BCE (2000 BC). It is a contracted form of 'iibiram (HALAT 9; DE VAUX 1968:11; I Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrn in Ugarit (KTU 4.352:2,4 =IA-bi-ra-mul;; PRU 3,20; 5,85:10: 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. HUFFMO AbraJuim is an extended form of 'abram. The extension is rather due to reverence and distinction than dialectic variance.

In historical times, tradition-enfirmed by folkloristic etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7)-knew the patriach only by his name 'abraJuim (Mic 7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.).

At one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities, or in terms of astral myth, particularly Abrnham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran).-Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah).

Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuch traditions picture him as the founder of a number of cult-places Abraham has an important place as far as gender law is considered in the ancient Hebraic sense, as the wife has limited jurisdiction and Sarah has to get authority from Abraham to chastise Hagar. Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization.



The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Just a little on the languages themselves, Akkadian language is about 2500 BC, Canaan language is about 1400 BC, and Chaldean is about 1000 BC, while Hebrew is about 1000 BC. All those language are Semitic and related, so when you state that Hebrew developed from Chaldean and Akkadian you then make the assumption that it exclusively developed from those languages which is not a true statement at all. Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language, and it belongs to the Canaanite family of languages. Also, copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities.

Also, to your misleading statement of Abraham coming from Chaldea. It would have been the Proto Chaldean' that dwelled in Sumer by the time of the Patriarch Abraham. Bringing me back to my point, Abraham comes from Mesopotamia (if he did exist at all), which in the Hebrew Bible is called Ur Kaśdim or Ur of Chaldeas. I think this is where you get that reference from, but it is inaccurate at best, from what I have posted above. The early Biblical writings will reflect the writings of Moses (and it may have actually been Yahwehists who penned the Pentautech). Assumedly, it would be hard to keep from oral tradition to writ a total accuracies of events.

Abraham if he did enter in Canaan (and he did according to the OT) essentially then he would have to speak (or learn) Canaanite language, and thusly Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic Canaanite tongue (feel free to research this). Also, Semitic is not an isolate language, but Sumerian is. In fact the people of Akkad will have borrowed from Sumer to make the first Semitic tongue. With exception to groups like the Hittite's who are Indo-Euro this is clearly evident with the peace treaty between the Hittite's and the Egyptian's in 1200 BC.


Hadad is Haddu from Ugarit and the much earlier form is Iskur from Sumer.

Baal in the Bible is not going to be referred to as Baal-Hadad in any form as a deity. Also, generally for example Baal-Hadad will indicate royalty such as Baal-Hanan to represent a king in Gen 36: 38-39, this is generally the designations, as most names are titles in those times. Baal-Hadad btw is a king in Neo Assyria, not a deity.

While Yahweh and Baal are terms for "Lord" they are specific designations in each culture. The Israelite's and the Canaanite's will worship both, which is evident in Biblical literature. Hence, your point makes no sense, please clarify. As well Baal is going to be a false God or Baal is Yahweh, it isn't designated at a time of convenience. Once again where did you get this research from?

The God Baal has a specific function as a storm God, much like Yahweh has a specific function as a storm God, both are storm Gods, in earlier Israelite and Ugaritic and Canaanite mythologies. An element in Baal’s meteorological entourage in KTU 1.5 V 6-11.342 Psalm 77:19 refers to the wheels in Yahweh’s storm theophany, which presumes a divine war chariot. Psalm 18 (2 Sam. 22):11 presents Yahweh riding on the wind surrounded by storm clouds. This image forms the basis for the description of the divine chariot in Ezekiel 1 and 10. Psalm 65:12 (E 11) likewise presupposes the storm-chariot image: “You crown your bounteous year, and your tracks drip with fatness.” Similarly, Yahweh’s storm chariot is the image presumed by Habakkuk 3:8 and 15. The description of Yahweh’s horses fits into the larger context of the storm theophany directed against the cosmic enemies, Sea and River. (The horses in this verse are unrelated to the horses dedicated to the sun in 2 Kings 23:11, unless there was a coalescence of the chariot imagery of the storm and the sun ) The motif of chariot-riding storm-god with his divine entourage extends in Israelite tradition to the divine armies of Yahweh riding on chariots with horses (2 Kings 2:11; 6:17). Other features originally attributed to Baal also accrued to Yahweh. Albright and other scholars 344 have argued the epithet ‘ly, “the Most High,” belonging to Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4’), appears as a title of Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and 68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25), in the biblical hypocoristicon ‘ē/î, the name of the priest of Shiloh,345 and in Hebrew inscriptional personal names yhw‘ly, “Yahu is Most High,” yw‘ly, “Yaw is Most High,” ̔lyhw, “Most High is Yahu,” and ‘lyw, “Most High is Yaw.” The bull iconography that Jeroboam I sponsored in Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-31) has been attributed to the influence of Baal in the northern kingdom. This imagery represented an old northern tradition of divine iconography for Yahweh used probably as a rival symbol to the traditional royal iconography of the cherubim of the Jerusalem temple. The old northern tradition of bull iconography for Yahweh is reflected in the name ‘glyw, which may be translated, “Young bull is Yaw,” in Samaria ostracon 41:1.348 The ca. twelfth-century bull figurine discovered at a site in the hill country of Ephraim and the young bull depicted on the tenth-century Taanach stand likewise involve the iconography of a god, either Yahweh or Baal. 349 Newer discoveries have yielded iconography of a deity on a bull on a ninth-century plaque from Dan and an eighth-century stele from Bethsaida.

Indeed, evidence for Yahweh as bull appears in Amherst Papyrus 63 (column XI): “Horus-Yaho, our bull is with us. May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow.” Despite later syncretism with Horus, the text apparently preserves a prayer to Yahweh in his emblem-animal as a bull invoked as the patron-god of Bethel. The further question is whether these depictions were specific to either El or Baal (or both) in the Iron Age. The language has been thought also to derive from El, frequently called “bull” (tr) in the Ugaritic texts. There is some evidence pointing to the application of this iconography to El in the IronAge.
I don’t find it insulting if a person calls me a country dweller. Yahweh is not reffered to as a storm god, nor does he function as a god of a specific thing. He is the God of everything. Again your picking at certain similarities without prove they are infact one and the same or that the Israelites really did copy it from the Canaanites. Baal Haddad was already in use as the name of a specific deity.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I don’t find it insulting if a person calls me a country dweller. Yahweh is not reffered to as a storm god, nor does he function as a god of a specific thing. He is the God of everything. Again your picking at certain similarities without prove they are infact one and the same or that the Israelites really did copy it from the Canaanites. Baal Haddad was already in use as the name of a specific deity.

Hence, regarded as being unintelligent or provincial is an insult. If you don't mind being called unintelligent then there is an issue.

Yes Yahweh is a storm God, see Psalm 77:19 as well many other Biblical references to Yahweh as a storm God.

Israelite's come out of Canaan, we don't see Israelite's in Ur at all.

Baal-Haddad is generally for royalty, but also, ‘ly, “the Most High,” belonging to Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4’), appears as a title of Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and 68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25), in the biblical hypocoristicon ‘ē/î, the name of the priest of Shiloh,345 and in Hebrew inscriptional personal names yhw‘ly, “Yahu is Most High,” yw‘ly, “Yaw is Most High,” ̔lyhw, “Most High is Yahu,” and ‘lyw, “Most High is Yaw.”

Baal is a storm entity as well Hadad is also a storm entity. Those are two separate Semitic societies referred to. Hence, why Baal Hadad will refer to royalty, as Kings usually have favor with the Gods.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hence, regarded as being unintelligent or provincial is an insult. If you don't mind being called unintelligent then there is an issue.

Yes Yahweh is a storm God, see Psalm 77:19 as well many other Biblical references to Yahweh as a storm God.

Israelite's come out of Canaan, we don't see Israelite's in Ur at all.

Baal-Haddad is generally for royalty, but also, ‘ly, “the Most High,” belonging to Baal in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.16 III 6, 8; cf. RS 18.22.4’), appears as a title of Yahweh in 1 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalms 18 (2 Sam. 22):14 and 68:6, 30, 35 (cf. Dan. 3:26, 32; 4:14, 21, 22, 29, 31; 5:18, 21; 7:25), in the biblical hypocoristicon ‘ē/î, the name of the priest of Shiloh,345 and in Hebrew inscriptional personal names yhw‘ly, “Yahu is Most High,” yw‘ly, “Yaw is Most High,” ̔lyhw, “Most High is Yahu,” and ‘lyw, “Most High is Yaw.”

Baal is a storm entity as well Hadad is also a storm entity. Those are two separate Semitic societies referred to. Hence, why Baal Hadad will refer to royalty, as Kings usually have favor with the Gods.
Actually it literally means provincial not necessarily unintelligent as you’ve added. Baal Haddad however was in the specific use of a specific deity not Yahweh, Baal is a general term meaning lord as Elohim means god. So there’s no problem for Yahweh being called most high. As for Psalm 77:19:

Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Actually it literally means provincial not necessarily unintelligent as you’ve added.

Per the dictionary
pagan
[pey-guh n]
noun
  1. (no longer in technical use) one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
  2. a member of a religious, spiritual, or cultural community based on the worship of nature or the earth; a neopagan.
  3. Disparaging and Offensive.
    1. (in historical contexts) a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim; a heathen.
    2. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
    3. an uncivilized or unenlightened person.
      adjective
      1. of, relating to, or characteristic of pagans.
      2. Disparaging and Offensive.
        1. relating to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
        2. irreligious or hedonistic.
        3. (of a person) uncivilized or unenlightened.
No I didn't add provincial or unintelligent, that was by the dictionary term. Hence, it is an insult in origin.

Baal Haddad however was in the specific use of a specific deity not Yahweh, Baal is a general term meaning lord as Elohim means god. So there’s no problem for Yahweh being called most high. As for Psalm 77:19:

Your path led through the sea, your way through the mighty waters, though your footprints were not seen.
Baal Hadad as indicated above generally relates to royalty. Your assertion is that Baal is a term for Lord as well Yahweh is a term for Lord, however, this is not true when both terms are used in their specific cultural societies, they are specific in their societies, but those terms are also accepted beyond that.

Baal-Hadad as a deity is not referred to in Biblical texts at all, in fact if anything the worship of Baal is forbidden as seen in Numbers and later on Yahweh asserts he is Baal in Hosea. However, in Ugarit Haddu will have been the storm God, relating to the Hadad storm God in Assyria.

Both are however storm Gods, so yes Psalm 77:19 with the description of Yahweh leading through the sea and mighty waters (oceans and storms), though your footprints were not seen is an exact implication that Yahweh is a storm God.

In the Baal Cycle, from Ugarit just north of Galilee and dated to 1400 to 1200 B.C., Hadad is called “Rider of Clouds”, a title that is also used in Psalm 68:4 for Yahweh, a proper name typically translated as “the LORD” in most Bibles.

Isaiah uses the same tempest and fire language to describe “Yahweh Sabaoth”, which is translated “LORD of Hosts” in most Bibles but is sometimes given the more appropriate translation “Yahweh of Armies” in the New Jerusalem Bible, an identification that matches with the role of the storm/war gods.

Throughout all of these epic cycles of the storm/war god, the ocean is symbolically linked to ever-churning chaos and is thus identified with the enemy.

The storm god acts as a national protector by smashing the sea dragon and then constructing the world from its remains, just as the king was to defeat his enemy and construct his nation from the wealth of conquest.

“Did I not tell Thee, O Prince Baal, Nor declare, O Rider of Clouds?”
–Ba’al Cycle

Sing to God, play music to his name, build a road for the Rider of the Clouds, rejoice in Yahweh, dance before him.
–Psalm 68:4, NJB

Psalm 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah, and rejoice before him.

The key word here is heavens which are clouds, as well, "And suddenly, in an instant, you will be visited by Yahweh Sabaoth [Yahweh of Armies] with thunder, earthquake, mighty din, hurricane, tempest, flame of devouring fire.
-Isaiah 29:5-6 NJB"

Isaiah 29:6 KJV Thou shalt be visited of the Lord of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire.

There is no denying that Yahweh is seen as a storm God, even in Biblical literature.
 
Upvote 0