• In total there are 6 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Is God a silverback?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

geo wrote:An excerpt:



Quote:
At this point, many Christians would abandon their faith, because their faith is in the creeds, and in an idea of an inerrant Bible. For me, on the other hand, taking the Bible seriously meant taking all of the conflicting voices within the Bible seriously, and I was able to see the value in that. What informs my faith is not so much what the Bible “says” as it is what the Bible displays, the processes that unfold in its pages, the struggle to find meaning that it represents. It’s precisely in the humanity of the Bible that we can gain real insight into the divine. What’s revelatory is not always the words themselves, but the spaces between them.



Maybe it's appropriate to apply First Commandment—though shall have no other gods before me—to those who worship the creeds? That's what Stark seems to suggest. But more importantly, Stark argues that the early Israelites were polytheists and that Yahweh was one El Elyon’s children. Only later did Yahweh become the one God of monotheist Christianity. There's plenty of textual evidence to support this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-t ... 77340.html
Hi Geo. Feel free to chip in here any time. I must say though that I found Thom Starks views and interpretations quite bizarre and seriously wrong.
I haven't read his book but in the interview you linked he refers to Deuteronomy ch 32 supposedly referring to Yahweh as being one of the sons of El Elyon.
I had a look and as close as I can find there he must be referring to verse 8, but it says nothing of the kind, rather it refers to the sons of Adam.
You can check the original Hebrew on biblehub if you like. Not only that but in the same song of Moses he's referring to, in verse 39 there is a clear and unambiguous statement of monotheism, to the exclusion of all other supposed gods.
http://biblehub.com/nasb/deuteronomy/32.htm

He also wrongly characterizes the test of Abraham's faith as being to appease God when it's obviously nothing of the kind. Abraham knew Isaac could not have died ultimately based on the promise. Paul in Romans 4 gives a better understanding of this.

Also he mentions Jepthah's sacrifice of his daughter. He fails to mention that God never asked Jepthah to make this rash vow. Also close study of the relevant text in Judges shows that what was entailed was not killing his daughter but that she his only heir, never married and this ended his lineage which was an important matter to them.
And Stark doesn't give due weight to the commands of God against child sacrifice and the judgement on the Canaanites for this very crime.
So I'm not impressed with his scholarly ability from what I have seen.

On the question of original monotheism I linked a podcast earlier of Dr Corduan discussing his book on the subject. He draws on extensive anthropological studies to make this case.

Finally the relevance of discussions on when books such as makeup the Pentatuech were written are important because they undoubtedly are monotheistic and indicate the earliest beliefs of the Israelites.

Liberal theological theories such as the documentary source hypothesis truly were conceived in a vacuum of archaeological ignorance and predicated on rationalistic philosophical presuppositions.

It's impossible to emphasize this enough so to underline it, here again is Prof Kitchen's summary of relevant archaeological discoveries.
http://www.theologynetwork.org/the-bibl ... tament.htm
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

It's not really important for me how the Bible is interpreted either way. It seems a given that all humans were polytheists early in our history, long before the books of the Bible were written. Sometimes in these discussions, we get bogged down on esoteric details in order to avoid the more obvious problems with, say, a belief in an inerrant Bible.

Anyway, as a matter of interest, here's how Robert Wright explains the El Elyon connection.

http://www.evolutionofgod.net/question_israelite:
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

geo wrote:It's not really important for me how the Bible is interpreted either way. It seems a given that all humans were polytheists early in our history, long before the books of the Bible were written. Sometimes in these discussions, we get bogged down on esoteric details in order to avoid the more obvious problems with, say, a belief in an inerrant Bible.

Anyway, as a matter of interest, here's how Robert Wright explains the El Elyon connection.

http://www.evolutionofgod.net/question_israelite:
O.K. Geo, I see where Stark and Wright are getting this now. It's all about which text is the correct one. It may well be that the Qumran text reading is correct and it should read the sons of God rather than the children of Israel. But that's not a problem as the angels are referred to as the sons of God in Job for example.

What it does not say is that Yahweh was one of these sons of God as Stark asserts. I mentioned verse 39 of the same passage where Yahweh says: "See now that I am he and there is no God beside me."
If in fact Yahweh was one of these angels/slash sons of God this would make nonsense of it as it would mean the most high his 'creator' was not God!
Stark's interpretation, though he never clearly explains how he derives it from Deuteronomy, is not justified and is incoherent in the overall context and meaning of the passage.

He throws out other statements such as that the promise of an eternal Davidic kingdom failed. He blithely ignores the N.T. interpretation that Christ fulfilled this and that his kingdom is a spiritual kingdom not a geographical entity though it ultimately will include the entire earth.

The same with his statement that Christ expected to return in the lifetime of the apostles. This invariably is based on poor exegesis and ignoring many other passages.

Michael Heiser actually responds to the whole sons of God question in Deuteronomy. It's rather long and complex but if anyone is actually interested here it is.

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hi ... t32-bs.htm

Stark disses inerrancy but the 'errors' he cites are not errors at all other than his own lack of understanding of these texts.

I really don't see how it is a given that polytheism precede monotheism. Surely some evidence is in order here?

It's entirely your choice whether it's important to you or not how the bible is interpreted or not. However what we see here repeatedly are attempts by some to undercut it's reliability.

Given it's profoundly significant claims this is no trivial matter,should these in fact be true, as I believe they are.

For this reason the evasive strategies of so called scholars to get around predictive prophecies such as Isaiah's of Cyrus' conquest of Babylon and returning the Israelites to their homeland thoroughly deserve the refutation they get.

They invent 3' Isaiahs' to get around the problem their philosophical worldview can't endure and do the same kind of thing with many other prophetic passages and books.

Likewise with messianic prophecy. The mythicists try avoid it with their absurd claims that Jesus never actually existed or was crucified by Pilate in real history.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: I really don't see how it is a given that polytheism precede monotheism. Surely some evidence is in order here?
Flann, hello. I was surprised as well to see this statement that monotheism preceded polytheism. In the OT, God doesn't warn his people against going off and creating other gods; he warns them not to fall back into their idolatry, implying that God himself is the new and improved way to worship. Isn't the Abraham story hard to understand if it doesn't represent a watershed moment where a people dedicate themselves to the one God rather than to the many false ones?

Would you by any chance be thinking of Hinduism as a monotheistic religion, as some do? If we go with the more popular view that the many divine characters make it polytheistic, it would seem that we'd have to show that Judaism is really older, and I'm not sure we can do that. Even if it were true that Judaism is older, what would be the significance? It still wouldn't mean that monotheism in any sense comes first in the development of religion. How likely is it that originally the Hindus had only one name for God? How likely is it that 50,000 years ago humans didn't worship the forces of nature in the form of gods and goddesses?

I'm willing to see monotheism as representing a progression of thought, so I guess I'm wondering why you seem to object to the notion.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

DWill wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
I really don't see how it is a given that polytheism precede monotheism. Surely some evidence is in order here?




Flann, hello. I was surprised as well to see this statement that monotheism preceded polytheism. In the OT, God doesn't warn his people against going off and creating other gods; he warns them not to fall back into their idolatry, implying that God himself is the new and improved way to worship. Isn't the Abraham story hard to understand if it doesn't represent a watershed moment where a people dedicate themselves to the one God rather than to the many false ones?

Would you by any chance be thinking of Hinduism as a monotheistic religion, as some do? If we go with the more popular view that the many divine characters make it polytheistic, it would seem that we'd have to show that Judaism is really older, and I'm not sure we can do that. Even if it were true that Judaism is older, what would be the significance? It still wouldn't mean that monotheism in any sense comes first in the development of religion. How likely is it that originally the Hindus had only one name for God? How likely is it that 50,000 years ago humans didn't worship the forces of nature in the form of gods and goddesses?
Hi Dwill. Thanks for your ideas here. Well of course Judaism includes the Genesis account which is of a single transcendent creator God creating all things in the beginning.
The comparisons with pagan accounts do show stark contrasts as well as similarities. The fondness of critics to dismiss the account as just another primeval myth rarely addresses these profound differences. So while Genesis describes Abraham being taken from idolatrous paganism to the true God, it also chronicles an earlier belief in the one true God and subsequent departure from that by many.

Also as I've been at pains to point out the standard liberal scholar's account of how and when these biblical books were written are simply erroneous founded on speculative theories divorced from archaeological, philological and other evidences that speak in support of an early date for these books such as the Pentateuch.

And even many liberal scholars are ditching these higher critical speculations and for very good reasons.

Whether these Hebrew writings are earlier than say some Hindu writings is a separate question.What needs to be answered is how the Hebrews have such clear and early monotheism is contrast to the pagan polytheism around them.

So books like Robert Wright and Thom Stark's proceed on false higher critical assumptions on when they were written and so forth which manufactures an allegedly evolutionary path to monotheism on very dubious if any real data at all.

Thus Stark tries to paint Judaism as a barbaric pagan like religion which only much later was "purified" into a more ethical and monotheistic entity.
Corduan's book attempts to determine on anthropological grounds what may have been the earliest religions and whether they were monotheistic or animistic and polytheistic originally.

We're dealing with probabilities and likelihoods not certainties but he maintains that the balance of probability is far more towards early monotheism than the other way round. His book is called "In the beginning God."

As for Hinduism,I found it very interesting that links could be made from the Genesis account of the table of nations to many other religions including Hinduism on linguistic and other bases. That is that these are derivative from earlier beliefs which would then have modified into their more polytheistic form.

Of course it's anathema to many that a creationist scholar could have anything worthwhile at all to say on these matters.

I'll see if I can find that link again and add it here. It's a talk available on youtube, but I don't have it in written form unfortunately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDJXn8lztEs

In his talk Paul Griffiths looks at the sons of Noah and their sons in the context of historical,geographical and linguistic evidences. For example Seba and Raamah,sons of Ham may very well be the basis for Shiva and Rama in Hinduism, in terms of ancestor worship. He ties this with the geography place names and historical references to these people and tribes.
So the argument that this is all myth really needs to account for these decidedly historical and real peoples, places and tribes.

So I'm not denying the reality of animism and polytheism in early religions but it's a reasonable thesis that the original version is monotheistic as Corduan argues.

Just as a sort of postscript to my response to Thom Stark's claims, here's a rather uncompromising critical review of his book, The human faces of God" by a Christian reviewer.
http://www.christianciv.com/humanfacesofgod.htm
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:. . . A traditional theory of religious evolution sees monotheism as the high point of religious enlightenment, evolving from earlier approaches such as animist belief in nature spirits and polytheism, which are both conceived as earlier more primitive approaches to religion. This model of animism=>polytheism=>monotheism imagines a close parallel between social and religious progress, but it breaks down when the failings of monotheism are considered.
Yes, it seems to me that religion would mirror the complexity of society. As we grew from small tribal groups into nation-states, religion became more regimented, and centralized, and with those changes came the belief in one God. Sir James George Frazer, in the Golden Bough, published in 1900, compared myths and religious beliefs across many cultures and found many common themes, including fertility rites, human sacrifice, the dying god, the scapegoat, and the king as incarnation of a dying and reviving god, The book was scandalous when it was first published because it included Jesus and the Resurrection in its comparative study. Frazier removed Christian references in subsequent editions.

Because all cultures don't evolve equally, we can still find people who worship deities as our ancestors did. Shinto, the traditional religion of Japan, is highly animistic and Native American religions tend to be animistic. So it seems fairly obvious that there is a progression of religious belief from animism to polytheism to the centralized forms of monotheism that we see in developed nations today.
Robert Tulip wrote:Atheists sometimes argue that loss of faith is the next higher step, as a cultural evolution beyond religion. The problem with that is that atheism fails to replace the tribal elements of religion. The communist version of atheism uses class war by the militant godless as the tribal motive, but that is a regression from religion. Capitalist atheism with its religious ideology of secular liberal individualism fails to capture the tribal ritual function of religion, and so lacks potential to provide a meaningful story able to inspire broad interest.
Frazer proposed that mankind progresses from magic through religious belief to scientific thought. I don't think atheism or loss of faith is ever a goal in itself. But I agree that people still need metaphorical and mythological narratives to inspire us. I believe humanity progresses on a scientific level, but perhaps we have regressed spiritually and are losing our familiarity with metaphoric and poetic forms of communication. (As Joe Jackson sings in one of his new songs, "We got the big dream . . . And the bright lights . . . but we don't see the stars anymore.") We need a mythology that inspires us, but is compatible with modern science. The Fundamentalist version of religion is arguably a destructive force because it increasingly needs to attack science and reason in order to rationalize irrational beliefs, and therefore it only breeds exclusion and isolation and ignorance.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: Just as a sort of postscript to my response to Thom Stark's claims, here's a rather uncompromising critical review of his book, The human faces of God" by a Christian reviewer.
http://www.christianciv.com/humanfacesofgod.htm
Mike Warren's review is interesting. It seems to me that Biblical scholars come in many sizes and shapes and clearly there's a lot of room for interpretation, but clearly some of these critiques are aligned with your starting assumptions. If your starting position is the Bible is inerrant, than of course Stark's interpretations will be judged to be "wrong" or "in error".

Warren argues that Elyon is "not a name, it’s an epithet, a description." But that judgment is open to interpretation is it not? From my perspective, a scholar becomes an apologist when his only goal is to align the "scholarship" with the religious belief that the Bible is inerrant, as Warren obviously does. This passage is telling:
On the other hand, some of the names and descriptions of various Ugarit gods are used for the Hebrew God (Yahweh, El Shaddai, El Elyon). Similarity of language does not prove that the same exact beliefs are being adopted, no more than the use of Greek by New Testament writers proves that Greek philosophy was being adopted them. They worked with the language that was available and adapted it for their own uses. The Higher Critics simply beg the question of naturalism – they assume that all knowledge must come from earthly sources and not from an absolute God that speaks in the midst of history in propositional language to humans. Assuming the truth of the Bible, polytheism is a degeneration from an original monotheism; and it might be that the various names used to describe the true God eventually became names for different gods in Ugarit.
Warren's phrase (bolded above)—"assuming the truth of the Bible"—is a huge red flag because the "truth" here is Warren's religious dogma, not any kind of legitimate historical scholarship. The Bible apologists apparently don't understand the difference between their own highly subjective religious beliefs and an objective reading of the Bible as a historical document.

And who is Warren anyway? Is he a historian?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

geo wrote: And who is Warren anyway? Is he a historian?
I'll answer my own question. Michael Warren completed an MSc in Empires, Colonialism and Globalisation at the LSE in 2012, and graduated from the University of Sheffield (studying on exchange at the University of Waterloo, Ontario) with a BA in Modern History in 2011

I'm only lightly delving into this subject. It seems like Warren is resistant to any but the orthodox interpretation of the Bible, but I'm hardly the person to challenge Warren to a duel. Anyway, here Warren responds to some of Stark's many criticisms of his book review. It goes into quite a lot of detail.

http://www.christianciv.com/humanfaceso ... Polytheism
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: the standard liberal scholar's account of how and when these biblical books were written are simply erroneous founded on speculative theories divorced from archaeological, philological and other evidences that speak in support of an early date for these books such as the Pentateuch.
This claim that higher criticism is divorced from archaeology is so divorced from all truth and scholarship as to be deeply unethical, illustrating why conventional religion is such an object of scorn and disdain. For Flann to make such a claim is a perfect illustration of how evangelicalists have no concern for evidence, and why atheists find the silverback idea more plausible. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein shows that there is extremely high probability that the Exodus story is pure fiction. There is no archaeological evidence for early dating for the Pentateuch.
Flann 5 wrote: it's anathema to many that a creationist scholar could have anything worthwhile at all to say on these matters.
No, it is not anathema, since it is possible that creationists could have some useful insights despite their factual errors. What is anathema to scientists is that creationists can hold to unethical politicizing opinions which are flagrantly contradicted by simple obvious evidence. Creationists thereby sow false doubt in the broader community regarding basic methods of evidence, preventing people from understanding reality. That is entirely unethical.
Flann 5 wrote: Paul Griffiths looks at the sons of Noah and their sons in the context of historical, geographical and linguistic evidences.
You mean how Genesis is plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Flann 5 wrote:Seba and Raamah sons of Ham may very well be the basis for Shiva and Rama in Hinduism, in terms of ancestor worship.
Other way around more likely. Abraham and Sarah come from Brahma and Sarasvati. The Ark comes from Agastya. The Indo-European linguistic family did not come from Israel.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Is God a silverback?

Unread post

geo wrote:Mike Warren's review is interesting. It seems to me that Biblical scholars come in many sizes and shapes and clearly there's a lot of room for interpretation, but clearly some of these critiques are aligned with your starting assumptions. If your starting position is the Bible is inerrant, than of course Stark's interpretations will be judged to be "wrong" or "in error".

Warren argues that Elyon is "not a name, it’s an epithet, a description." But that judgment is open to interpretation is it not? From my perspective, a scholar becomes an apologist when his only goal is to align the "scholarship" with the religious belief that the Bible is inerrant, as Warren obviously does. This passage is telling:



Quote:
On the other hand, some of the names and descriptions of various Ugarit gods are used for the Hebrew God (Yahweh, El Shaddai, El Elyon). Similarity of language does not prove that the same exact beliefs are being adopted, no more than the use of Greek by New Testament writers proves that Greek philosophy was being adopted them. They worked with the language that was available and adapted it for their own uses. The Higher Critics simply beg the question of naturalism – they assume that all knowledge must come from earthly sources and not from an absolute God that speaks in the midst of history in propositional language to humans. Assuming the truth of the Bible, polytheism is a degeneration from an original monotheism; and it might be that the various names used to describe the true God eventually became names for different gods in Ugarit.
Hi Geo. It's true that the bible has to be interpreted and even Conservative scholars don't agree on all points and especially when it comes to apocalyptic prophecy.

I wouldn't agree with Warren on some of his interpretations in this area. I still think Stark's interpretation of Deuteronomy 32 is poor for the reasons I gave. Yahweh's saying there is no God beside him being a key point. Of course the most high means the one true God.

Christianity is trinitarian. See Psalm 2 in relation to the nations being given to the son of God. Even granting that the sons of God in Deuteronomy 32 are the angels this is not a problem, as Heiser points out in terms of the divine council in the O.T.and in Job as I instanced.. But Stark's interpretation leads to nonsense in view of verse 39

.As far as Jesus prophecies of the destruction of the temple and his coming are concerned it's necessary to ask what questions he was answering when he spoke this.
Luke focuses on the question of when the temple would be destroyed and the effects in Jerusalem. In Matthew 24 we are told that Jesus was asked two questions.
When he tells the disciples that the temple will be destroyed they ask; "When will these these things be and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? So two questions are answered one relating to the near at hand destruction of the temple and the other to the end of the age.

In Luke, Jesus tells a parable of a king going into a far country to receive a kingdom and returning later because the disciples thought the kingdom was about to appear immediately, as he was about to enter Jerusalem.

At the end of Matthew 24 he tells another similar parable where a wicked servant on the basis of his master delaying his coming begins to act wickedly.
Also the gospel must be preached to all nations before his return and the end of the age.

In other words there are many indicators from Jesus own words here and in many other parables such as the tares and wheat that the end is not envisaged as being about to happen in anything like the lifetime of the disciples.
So in Matthew 24 the" this generation shall not pass before all these things are fulfilled" saying, are answering the second question of his coming and the end of the age.

Warren equates his' coming' with the destruction of the temple but I don't think he is correct here and Stark points to problems with that interpretation.
But Stark is ignoring the many passages I have alluded to showing that Christ did not think his return would be imminent. Here Warren would be correct with his "moron" principle that Jesus must have been very confused to elaborate such obviously clear suggestions that his second coming was not imminent,if in fact he was saying that it was.

Of course Stark has great difficulties in accepting many things in the bible and even in relation to Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple,Jerusalem and it's people as being a divine judgement.

Critics of Christianity are mesmerized by passages that speak of divine judgement and even this thread's title is an example of this.
It's unbalanced of course ignoring all other aspects of God as revealed in the bible.

Jesus we are told wept over Jerusalem with it's long history of stoning the prophets the messengers of their God, and now on the verge of demanding the crucifixion of the son of their God.

Consider this though, the apostles were instructed to preach the good news of forgiveness beginning at Jerusalem. Peter preaches this very thing telling them that they had demanded his death and even preferred the release of a murderer, Barabbas.

Nevertheless to these very people the message of forgiveness was to be preached first and on the just basis of the atonement made by Christ.
The message of atoning sacrifice for sin which is so repugnant to Stark and his fellow critics.

Nevertheless,many rejected the gospel and as he said,prophets apostles and wise men would be sent to them who they would mistreat and condemn. Stephen and Paul spring to mind.

Jesus is unflinching in declaring that a devastating judgement from God would fall on Jerusalem. He did not think it was unjust though his critics of course are much wiser and more just.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”