Page 31 of 45
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 7:54 am
by seeker
The biggest problem with religious forgeries is not thay they can't be debunked, in fact they are usually easily exposed as frauds. The problem is that once exposed as frauds true believers simply wait for the commotion to die down and then re-introduce the previously exposed evidence to be debunked all over again.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:32 am
by Minimalist
True enough. The most famous fundie to ever 'grace' these boards was famous for trotting out 1915 "archaeological" studies and proclaiming those to be right and subsequent finds which demolished them to be the 'work of the devil.'
There is no reasoning with some people.
The "Walls of Jericho" is perhaps the most famous example of this mindset.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 9:49 am
by kbs2244
What got me about that story was that the news release was about the palace, but the headline was about the Ark.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:31 am
by Minimalist
Yes, kb, you have correctly identified the disconnect between reporters and headline writers!
Happens all the time, mon ami.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 3:22 pm
by kbs2244
Movie attendance.
Any bets on how many Crystal Skull headlines we are due to see?
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:21 pm
by Ishtar
I was thinking about angel names, and then realised that they all end in el - Gabri-el, Micha-el, Zadkiel, Rapha-el, Sammu-el and so on. So could this mean that the angels' names are earlier than Yahweh, that they are the messengers of El?
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:49 pm
by rich
Some say the Elohim were what we call the angels, El being the father of them. So what we classify as the angels were actually the sons of God - ie - they were the gods. Others say they were the ancestors of man that are gone now but were relegated as the gods ( again - idols or images).
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:54 pm
by Ishtar
I'm more interested in this politically - in other words, why did the Yahwists not change the names of the angels? They're appearing as the messengers of El even in the later Christian gospels. But El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon ...
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:58 pm
by rich
Why would they? What gain would there be?
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:11 pm
by Ishtar
rich wrote:Why would they? What gain would there be?
When imposing a new regime, in order for it to be successful you need to wipe out all traces of the old one, especially when you're trying to reinvent yourself, pretending to be someone you're not.
The Bible makes a very bad job of this generally, with all sort of contradictions, which is why I sometimes doubt that the OT is the glorified PR press release of the Yahwists some claim it to be.
For instance, this is from Friedman's The Bible With Sources Revealed:
The point is not that [Biblical writers] have different names for God. The point is that different sources have a different idea of when the name YHWH was first revealed to human beings.
According to J, the name was known since the earliest generations of humans. Referrng to a generation before the flood, J says explicitly, "Then it was begun to invoke the name of YHWH" (Gen 4:26).
The use of it by go back even further, because according to J, Eve uses it when she names Cain. (Gen 4.1).
But in E and P, it is stated just as explcitly that YHWH does not reveal his name until the generation of Moses ....
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:13 pm
by rich
You forget they call themselves Israelites. They already managed to insert themselves into the "fold".
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:17 pm
by Ishtar
I'm not forgetting it, Rich.
It's just another contradiction to the theory.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:23 pm
by rich
They were trying to show they were the chosen people. Those "gods" were taken from an earlier age and so they had to rely on being included into the fold. They couldn't really tear the older system down - it would've worked against what they were trying to show. Modifying now - that's a different story - all the old civilizations did that and it was acceptable.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:28 pm
by Ishtar
rich wrote:
Modifying now - that's a different story - all the old civilizations did that and it was acceptable.
Well, then here's an irony.
The Christians modified by adapting older gods like El into their angels' names. But when they spread their religion across the Mediterranean and into Europe, they stamped out the names of the gods of the polytheists and imposed their own on the existing practices.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:34 pm
by rich
Not an irony - they were moving into different territories and different cultures so had to incorporate them into it the same way - only instead of angels they started using saints etc. in the same way - making the older gods of the middle east subservient to YHVH and the others from the European groups even subservient to them.