Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ABH Re: Yahweh

Expand Messages
  • Walter Mattfeld
    Dear Richard, It is is nonsense to say that one can not know whether God speaks to an individual or not. The bible itself gives clear directions on how to
    Message 1 of 93 , Aug 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Richard,

      It is is nonsense to say that one can not know whether God speaks to an individual or not. The bible itself gives clear directions on how to determine if God has spoken to an individual or whether he is a bald-faced liar.

      Deut 18:21-22, RSV,
      "And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken ?- when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him."

      Evidently Isaiah and Jeremiah are Liars because their prophecies failed to come true. Both predicted that God would set his people free, that is both Israel AND Judah, and restore ALL OF THEM, NOT "SOME" OF THEM to their land, Jeremiah claiming this would occur AFTER 70 YEARS HAD ELAPSED (Judah fell in 587 BCE and 70 years later is 517 BCE, cf. Jer 25:11,12; 29:10; ). By 517 BCE, only "SOME" of Judah has returned to the land, NOT ALL Judah or ANY of Israel (Lie number one).

      Jer 24: 11-14, RSV,

      "This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. THEN AFTER SEVENTY YEARS ARE COMPLETED, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste. I will bring upon that land all the words which I have uttered against it, EVERYTHING written in this book, which Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations. For many nations and great kings shall make slaves even of them; and I will recompense them according to their deeds and the work of their hands."

      Babylon was to be destroyed by Medes (cf. Isa 13:17; Jer 51:11) and never to be inhabited again upon the release of the Jews (Jer 50:23). It didn't happen, the Jews were released, and Babylon surrendered to Persians, NOT Medes, in 539 BCE, NOT 517 BCE, and the city was spared, NO Babylonian slaughter or destruction as predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Lie number two & three).

      These prophets claimed God would pour out his holy spirit upon his returning peoples and they would not need human instructors to teach them God's ways, because God himself would "personally" engrave his ways upon their hearts- this never happened- Lie Number four (Jer 31:34) God's ways are still being taught by men to men. Jeremiah even claimed the returnees from the captivity would turn to God with their "whole hearts", yet Ezra and Nehemiah portray a nation still violating the Sabbath and marrying foreign women.

      Jer 24: 6-7, RSV,
      "...I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not uproot them. I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for THEY SHALL RETURN TO ME WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART."

      God DID NOT give the returnees "a whole heart to worship him," they were still in rebellion in Ezra's days, he having arrived in Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, ca. 459 BCE, SOME 81 YEARS AFTER THE RETURN FROM BABYON IN 539 BCE.

      Ezra 9:1-4, RSV,

      "...The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites...For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this FAITHLESSNESS the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost. When I heard this, I rent my garments and my mantle, and pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat appalled. Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the FAITHLESSNESS OF THE RETURNED EXILES, gathered round me..."

      Jer 31: 27-34, 38-40, RSV,

      "Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will sow the house of Israel AND the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring evil, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, says the Lord. In those days...Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I WILL PUT MY LAW WITHIN THEM, and I WILL WRITE IT UPON THEIR HEARTS; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And NO LONGER SHALL EACH MAN TEACH his neighbor and each his brother, saying 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more...Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt...It shall not be uprooted or overthrown any more forever."

      God DID NOT put his law in his people's hearts, and Ezra -a man- had to teach his fellow neighbors "Know the Lord." Obviously Jeremiah is a FALSE PROPHET.

      In 135 CE Jerusalem was "uprooted and overthrown" by the Romans. Jews were forbidden to enter or dwell in the city. It was rebuilt as a Roman city and named after the emperor Hadrian, so much for Jeremiah's FALSE prophecy it would never be overthrown again FOREVER.

      Claiming that Babylon today is deserted is proof that these men were "real" prophets doesn't cut it ! The prophecy was quite specific, Judah would serve Babylon as slaves for 70 years, then Babylon would be destroyed and become slaves (Jer 25:11-12)- it didn't happen. Babylon came to be abandoned under the Seleucid Greeks, when they moved the capital to Seleucia, 60 miles away. The governing classes and artisans followed and the city went into economic decline and died of economic neglect beginning in the 3rd century BCE and ending in the first century CE. No storming of walls here by bloodthirsty Medes slaughtering (Isa 13:17-20; Jer and enslaveing Babylonians in revenge for their destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon by God !

      As regards your assertion that one cannot tell if God has spoken today- nonsense ! I can "prophesize that the world will end tomorrow." When this fails to come about, I am exposed as a lying prophet, no God spoke to me ! We had a bunch of Liars predicting the end of the world and the "Day of the Lord" to shortly appear plunging the whole world into slaughter with the recent Millenium 2000 CE, they all turned out to be liars.

      Your "implicit" chronology doesn't hold up Richard, as I pointed out to you in earlier posts. Rohl claims Saul, David and Solomon are Late Bronze Age kings, denying mainstream biblical scholars understanding that the Iron Age I & II is Israelite. I have shown that several cities and towns mentioned in the story of Saul's and Jonathan's battles with the Philistines did not exist in Late Bronze Age times, BUT ALL OF THEM EXIST IN IRON AGE TIMES, confirming the biblical scenario- but, you have chosen to turn a BLIND EYE to this archaeological evidence.

      I am aware of Kitchen's assertion that Dibon existed in the Late Bronze Age, he has an article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary to this effect. I am also aware -which you evidently are not aware of- that in the same dictionary is a report from the archaeologists who excavated Dibon and they assert Kitchen is dead wrong, there is NO Late Bronze Age at Dibon. I must conclude that the word in Egyptian that Kitchen wishes to render into Dibon is some other place.

      Richard : <SNIP>
      "But this archaeological record is quite incomplete at this point of
      time and likely to stay so indefinitely - there is so much ground to
      cover and much of the source material we would all like to find has
      surely been destroyed accidentally or deliberately many years ago.
      Archaeology is one window on the OT (and other historical studies)
      but not the only one."<SNIP>

      Richard, the only thing "incomplete" is Rohl's and his minions' failure to account for Muchmas, Geba, Mizpeh's lack of Late Bronze Age debris. I regard your above statement as "doubletalk" and a "smokescreen to hide behind" because you can't provide the archaeological evidence that these places existed in Late Bronze Age times according to Rohl's "New Chronology."

      For those with an interest, the detailed arguments against Rohl's "New Chronology" are available at the following url

      All the best, Walter

      Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
      Walldorf by Heidelberg
      Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: richard.abbott@...
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:45 PM
      Subject: ABH Re: Yahweh


      as we know you feel very strongly about this issue, which I believe
      often makes it quite hard to conduct a rational debate. Without
      touching on beliefs about the ultimate origin of the Bible texts, I
      would like to point out some illogicalities in your argument...

      >>>>>>>>>>...you wrote>>
      We are given to believe that God speaks to Moses in Sinai, revealing
      of himself, "I am that I am." This is utter nonsense !

      There is absolutely no way you can assert that God did or did not
      speak to an individual in history (or the present day for that
      matter). Archaeological evidence is especially meagre in pinpointing
      meetings between individuals, for which one must rely on textual

      There is NO EVIDENCE of Israel in Sinai in the Late Bronze Age or the
      Early Iron I. There are no Late Bronze Age graves of the thousands
      slain in worship of the golden calf. Yet there are graves from the
      Early Bronze.

      As Maark has ably pointed out already, you are no longer using 'pure'
      archaeology but have brought in an implicit chronology to assert that
      the Exodus 'ought to' happen in a certain archaeological era. This is
      not logical.

      There is no Late Bronze age at [various places] ... nor at Dibon ...

      It is particaulrly interesting that you mention Dibon. Your statement
      agrees with my information that Dibon exhibits Early Bronze and Iron
      Age remains, but no Middle or Late Bronze. However, Rameses 2
      conquered the town and celebrated the fact in reliefs at Luxor. So
      despite the fact that archaeologically speaking it seemingly did not
      exist at this time, it was in fact (speaking textually) important
      enough that Rameses 2 thought it worth a mention. Of course, if R2
      was a Biblical figure you would be telling us it was all fiction ...
      There are numerous reasons (which I shall itemise on another
      occasion) why archaeologically towns 'go missing' for a while, and
      this does _not_ of itself means that the town ceased to exist.

      No archaeological data means, No Moses, No Joshua, No Yahweh-Elohim
      revealing himself in fire and cloud at Mt. Sinai.

      Again these are all individual episodes - personal encounters if you
      like - and it is not logical to expect an archeological record of

      The rational account must take archaeological data and evidence into
      account. .... I have made the archaeological connection !

      But logically this does not supply a causal 'arrow' showing one is
      derived from the other, still less which is first and which second
      (and logically one cannot excluded both derived from a common
      precursor). Archaeology might well be able to show you that two items
      share common features, but it is silent about causality. This is why
      you are forced to bring in a presumed chronology to give you some
      dates. Either or both your dates are open to dispute - Ugarit may be
      later (if for example Rohl is correct - I am aware you do not accept
      this but nevertheless it is worth remembering that present dating
      theories may be wrong), or the origin of the OT use of Yahweh may be
      earlier (if the patriarchal accounts stem from the early 2nd
      millennium and their use of Yahweh is original. In which case Ugarit
      borrowed the name from the Israelites and in the process shortened it
      a little to make it easier for themselves. It's a matter of

      For me, Archaeology determines what is true or not true in the bible,
      and every theory must be in agreement with the archaeological record.

      But this archaeological record is quite incomplete at this point of
      time and likely to stay so indefinitely - there is so much ground to
      cover and much of the source material we would all like to find has
      surely been destroyed accidentally or deliberately many years ago.
      Archaeology is one window on the OT (and other historical studies)
      but not the only one.

      Moses meaning "is drawn [from water]" is nonsense, I don't care if
      you want to "whitewash" this incorrect information as "punning"
      or "word-play," it is still false information, and I am after
      scholarly truth, not bible "harmonizations."

      No it's not nonsense or false information. It clearly does not accord
      with how you think things ought to be, but that's a separate matter.
      Purely on logical grounds we can say that the Israelites at some
      stage in their linguistic history used words like this. Whether it is
      a later feature (as John suggested) or a perennial one (as I suspect)
      is secondary at the moment - this is how they wrote and thought. To
      get to grips with a text (not just the OT) you have to try to get
      into the mind-set of the people who wrote it.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John
      Lloyd wrote ... Arabia. Lloyd, I believe this thesis has been largely abandonned. The Arabian origins thesis has been replaced by one which I understand comes
      Message 93 of 93 , Oct 15 12:00 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Lloyd wrote

        > I don't follow this. I suspect that Yahweh and the Shasu are from

        Lloyd, I believe this thesis has been largely abandonned. The Arabian
        origins thesis has been replaced by one which I understand comes from
        Gottwald and Medenhall, but has been more firmly enhanced by a
        critical study of archaeology and anthropology - namely that the Shasu
        developed through a process of Shasuisation of Canaanite elements of
        the Late Bronze Age. The first Arabians to appear are the Midianites,
        and they possibly cannot be dated much before 850-900 BCE.

        If so, this would centre the origins of Yahweh right back into
        Canaanite traditions, similar to what I suggest. Good to know that
        Walter too finds my thesis here pretty sound.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.