Not wanting to push the "quote" button and commit the offense of posting yet again your version of carpet-bombing, I'll just ask you what in the universe your intent could possibly be. Not being able to sensibly present and discuss your arguments yourself, is your plan to kill the discussion of this offending book?

Interbane wrote:Hmm, I've suddenly lost interest in this discussion.

Me too.

By the way, here's a definition of an internet troll from Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Stahrwe is turning this discussion into a farce. If we expect the author of this book to engage in an interview or online chat, that's pretty much going to be off the table if he sees this nonsense.

I'm working on a post for Ch. 4, but I'm steering clear of this chapter. I'm not going to feed the troll.

geo wrote: I'm working on a post for Ch. 4, but I'm steering clear of this chapter. I'm not going to feed the troll.

What the heck, I'll risk it. Since you're probably right about his m.o., the silent treatment might be effective should there be another eruption.

I'll say this for Wright, he's increasing my appreciation for the Bible. I mean in the sense that knowing more about how any work of art is put together, its construction and themes, opens it up. I might even be motivated to read the more boring Bible books that he draws from.

A lot of what Wright says about the evolution of the Hebrew God, from El to Yahweh by way of Baal, could be called speculative, but there just isn't much real information to go on. Wright uses what information is available and stresses the importance of archaeological findings after the middle of the last century, findings that indicate that the Bible's history is not accurate. He also uses ancient Canaanite sources and new readings of the bible text itself. It has always been a controversial subject: how true is this history of the emergence of the Israelites? Some partisans point to archaeological discoveries of places named in the Bible as if to say, see, the Bible didn't lie about this, so all the history must be true. But that's obviously not a warranted conclusion. The preferred epic or mythic lineage constructed by Jews for the Israelites is not history. Contrasting the relative suddeness and clean divisions given in the Bible, Wright traces the gradual emergence of the Israelites from the Canaanites, and of the Hebrew god of the Bible that was "promoted" past his old master, El, and then not so subtly drew off qualities from a major Canaanite god, Baal. The process of syncretism was at work in this.

By uncovering some of the shifts in meaning that came about through translation, Wright is able to show that Yahweh is more the mythological god in the Bible than is generally assumed. That is, he does his fair share of amazing feats in battle against monsters and forces of nature; he blows the Red Sea waters to a standstill with "a blast of [his] nostrils," among other epic achievements.

Wright ends with a question he won't fully answer until later: "What exactly is the connection between monotheism and intolerance, between monotheism and violence. A premise shared by all who commit violence in the name of the Abrahamic god is that this god is special--the one true god. And most of these people would say his specialness was manifest in his mode of appearance: more than three millennia ago, he showed up suddenly, announced his presence, and rejected the pagan polytheism of the day. If you ask them how they know that, they're likely to say that the scriptures told them so" (p. 129).

Also in summation: "The Hebrew bible--read carefully, and in light of ancient Canaanite writings--doesn't really tell the story the faithful have said it tells to begin with; at least, it doesn't tell that story in ultimately credible form. Alongside its monotheistic plotline lies diverse evidence casting that plotline into doubt. The story is undermined not just by the facts on the ground, but by the text itself'" (p. 130).

DWill wrote:Not wanting to push the "quote" button and commit the offense of posting yet again your version of carpet-bombing, I'll just ask you what in the universe your intent could possibly be. Not being able to sensibly present and discuss your arguments yourself, is your plan to kill the discussion of this offending book?

Point #1
Before I decided to participate in this 'discussion' I asked if this was an open dicussion or if BT members wanted it to be closed. That is, an echo chamber. I was told to have at it.

Point #2
Mr. Wright engages in fanciful speculation and refers to authors whose theories he admits are out there. A few pages later he refers to the same theory in terms which make it sound as if it had been established by its previous mention in his book.

Point #3
If Mr. Wright is going to speculate about the origin of god vs God and El vs Baal vs YHWH he had better be ready, and the members of BT had better be ready to consider information in opposition to and critical of said speculation. It is disingenuous to claim that reading a few paragraphs posted in opposition to Wright is off putting when the book in question is over 400 pages.

Point #4
By this stage of life most of you should have developed the ability to skim material.

Point #5
Can you or Wright identify the supposed editors of the Bible? He even admits he can't explain why they did certain things but then decides that shouldn't stop him from speculating.

Point #6
The two lenghty posts I included show a relationship between Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34. In my opinion, the fact that there is a NT reference to the very passage that Wright addresses raises the bar for him above speculation to 'better have some darn good evidence'.
He doesn't. In fact, I haven't seen anything but speculation and much of it wild in his entire book.

Point #7
If you wish to restrict this discussion to only those who agree with Wright let me know and I will curtail my participation.

stahrwe wrote: Point #1
Before I decided to participate in this 'discussion' I asked if this was an open dicussion or if BT members wanted it to be closed. That is, an echo chamber. I was told to have at it.

The key word being DISCUSSION. Only by a very distorted use of that word can you justify your approach in this forum.

Point #3
If Mr. Wright is going to speculate about the origin of god vs God and El vs Baal vs YHWH he had better be ready, and the members of BT had better be ready to consider information in opposition to and critical of said speculation. It is disingenuous to claim that reading a few paragraphs posted in opposition to Wright is off putting when the book in question is over 400 pages.

I suppose I should be grateful that you took a 5-minute breather while posting on Sept. 13. Boy, otherwise that would have been some megapost. Your reference to the book's length as justifying your "few paragraphs" is totally illogical. I'm sure I can't make my point with you if I haven't made it yet. Your manner in these forums is above all arrogant. You expect the rest of us to spend valuable time trying to divine, usually without any clue from you, the relationship of this undigested verbiage to the topic at hand. This is all English comp 101--basic research paper--stuff, and you would fail.

Point #4
By this stage of life most of you should have developed the ability to skim material.

It is YOUR responsibility to give to us what YOU consider important for us to know, related to the point at hand.

Point #7
If you wish to restrict this discussion to only those who agree with Wright let me know and I will curtail my participation.

Stop the insanity and I have no problem with your continuing to participate.

DWill wrote:

stahrwe wrote: Point #1
Before I decided to participate in this 'discussion' I asked if this was an open dicussion or if BT members wanted it to be closed. That is, an echo chamber. I was told to have at it.

The key word being DISCUSSION. Only by a very distorted use of that word can you justify your approach in this forum.

Point #3
If Mr. Wright is going to speculate about the origin of god vs God and El vs Baal vs YHWH he had better be ready, and the members of BT had better be ready to consider information in opposition to and critical of said speculation. It is disingenuous to claim that reading a few paragraphs posted in opposition to Wright is off putting when the book in question is over 400 pages.

I suppose I should be grateful that you took a 5-minute breather while posting on Sept. 13. Boy, otherwise that would have been some megapost. Your reference to the book's length as justifying your "few paragraphs" is totally illogical. I'm sure I can't make my point with you if I haven't made it yet. Your manner in these forums is above all arrogant. You expect the rest of us to spend valuable time trying to divine, usually without any clue from you, the relationship of this undigested verbiage to the topic at hand. This is all English comp 101--basic research paper--stuff, and you would fail.

Point #4
By this stage of life most of you should have developed the ability to skim material.

It is YOUR responsibility to give to us what YOU consider important for us to know, related to the point at hand.

Point #7
If you wish to restrict this discussion to only those who agree with Wright let me know and I will curtail my participation.

Stop the insanity and I have no problem with your continuing to participate.

Point #1
This is not an english composition class.

Point #2
Unlike Wright I prefer to provide the information and leave the speculation to the individual consumer. You are free to read the information posted or not. The bulk of the material in the first post consists of examples, in the second of footnotes. You can get enough from reading the first few paragraphs to get a sense of the material and decide if you want to continue reading or not. I also provide the url and the references so there is no question as to the origin.

Point #3
What is insanity about posting detailed information in connection with a book discussion? Really, what is the issue?

Point #4
In Epistemology and Biblical Evidence, Geo submitted 13 pages of The Age of Reason and 13 pages of Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. Neither include a summation and in neither case was the text included. Now, I would have prefered it to be included since, as basically a lazy person I prefer not to have to track things down myself.

Just engage the topic is all I ask. If it's holding Wright's feet to the flames that you are up to, fine, do that. But up to this point you haven't delivered, not by regurgitation of somebody else's writing. Think of this forum as a magazine or newspaper, or as an opinion column and present your thoughts accordingly. Could I also suggest that you reassess the situation? As you knew coming in, no one else would view the Bible as a holy book. You can't hope to bridge this divide, to convince any of us otherwise, and all of your own opinions rest on your certainty that the Bible is holy. That must be frustrating.

Some clarification:


All of this quoting of the "Most High" and "Lord" without using the original names which are being translated as "Most High" and "Lord" in english does nothing more than cover over the many names of God used in the text which reveal the early Elohim pantheon blend of polytheism that is evident in books such as Psalms.

Part I

Wright Page 123; Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34

34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, ' I am the Son of God'?

37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;

This is just like every other mistake made in the NT while trying to pull from the OT. As Price pointed out, Psalms 82 is referring to the "Sons of El", that is, to this entire pantheon of Gods under El-Elyon, the most high god of the pantheon. So the NT writer was trying to look for something in the OT which would appear to justify Jesus claim to be God, that is, the same as and one with God the Father (John 10:30). The book of John is primarily concerned with the divinity of Jesus and that concern seems to have lead to this quote mine attempt made in John. But Psalms 82:6 is not about angels, or the people of Israel, or judges, it's about the Elohim pantheon of gods known as the "Sons of El". To put it in perspective the verse is actually saying:

Psalms 82:1 El (God) presides in the great assembly; he gives judgement among the Elohim (gods).

Psalms 82:6 I said, "You are Elohim (gods); you are sons of El Elyon (the most high). But you will die like mere men."

The NT writer was searching for something that appeared to justify the claims of divinity. The book of John, coincidently, is concerned with the divinity of Jesus and it's clear that the writer went searching for a way of trying to piece together a text which would appear to confirm that. But in the process the writer fowled up and pulled from these old verses from Psalms that reflect the older polytheism of the Elohim pantheon thinking that Israel was being called "gods" by Yahweh, when that isn't the case.

I recently read The Ark of the Covenant by Graham Hancock. His argument, presented in scientific analytical terms, is that the Ark was an actual object of worship built by Moses, that was moved to Ethiopia and still exists there. This line provides an intriguing way to assess the emergence of monotheism. The 'one god' was in the box. Its cult provided the basis for Israel's national security.

Robert Tulip wrote:I recently read The Ark of the Covenant by Graham Hancock. His argument, presented in scientific analytical terms, is that the Ark was an actual object of worship built by Moses, that was moved to Ethiopia and still exists there. This line provides an intriguing way to assess the emergence of monotheism. The 'one god' was in the box. Its cult provided the basis for Israel's national security.

Thanks, Robert. Moses and the sojourn in Egypt doesn't have a very firm historical basis, though. From Wright's point of view, monotheism would develop much later than when Moses supposedly lived. The Israelites were probably polytheists living in Canaan.