Why is it important to study the Bible in context?

[Alabaster]

History is replete with the evidence, and the Bible with indicators as their trouble being tranistioning from the polytheists they were to monontheist of Yahweh, one of the sons of the ANE El. It goes back to that never ending isue of how people don't embrace change well.


The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts.

Excuse me, but Yahweh is ONE, and a son of no one.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

No, absolutely not. God's word is complete. We need nothing to make it more authoritative than itself.

Yes, I understand the faith view.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Excuse me, but Yahweh is ONE, and a son of no one.

Well, not according to history, archaeology, and verses found in the Bible.

 

[Alabaster]

Yes, I understand the faith view.

That is the view God desires.

 

[Alabaster]

Well, not according to history, archaeology, and verses found in the Bible.

This is where you err. God is who He says He is---he is one, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. There are no bible verses that agree with your antichristian version of things.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

This is where you err. God is who He says He is---he is one, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. There are no bible verses that agree with your antichristian version of things.

Yes, in fact there are indeed Bible verses that support the idea that Yahweh is a son of "EL, and the Israelites derived from a polytheist culture embracing Yahweh as the God of their own:

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NASB

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
(The Canaan most high, just like archaeology tells us)

When He separated the sons of man,
(divided up the nations)

He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
(We know from the Septuagint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, this should read “Sons of God” and not "Sons of Israel")

For the LORD'S portion is His people;
(Yahweh is the Lord in reference)

Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

--end verses--

So "El" assigns the nations of people according to the number of sons of God; his sons of God.

And we know this from Archaeology; El and his wife Asherah had 70 divine sons, from which archaeology tells us that Yahweh as one of this sons. (De Moore 1980, 175)

Ugaritic text indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

"The name of the son of god, Yahweh."

Read more: Torah, Ugartic Bible Torah, Ugartic Bible

In reality, there is probably good reason why people hold a sola scriptura view, because the reality is discomforting.

 

[Alabaster]

Yes, in fact there are indeed Bible verses that support the idea that Yahweh is a son of "EL, and the Israelites derived from a polytheist culture embracing Yahweh as the God of their own:

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NASB

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
(The Canaan most high, just like archaeology tells us)

When He separated the sons of man,
(divided up the nations)

He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
(We know from the Septuagint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, this should read “Sons of God†and not "Sons of Israel")

For the LORD'S portion is His people;
(Yahweh is the Lord in reference)

Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

--end verses--

So "El" assigns the nations of people according to the number of sons of God; his sons of God.

And we know this from Archaeology; El and his wife Asherah had 70 divine sons, from which archaeology tells us that Yahweh as one of this sons. (De Moore 1980, 175)

Ugaritic text indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

"The name of the son of god, Yahweh."

Read more: Torah, Ugartic Bible Torah, Ugartic Bible

In reality, there is probably good reason why people hold a sola scriptura view, because the reality is discomforting.

This is utter nonsense.

Believe in God and believe His word, but don;t add garbage to it---and DO NOT TEACH THIS STUFF! It simply pollutes one's faith, and if you are a Christian, you will be held accountable for teaching lies.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

...like I said, it can be a little discomforting but realizing the reality does not deter my faith in Christ.

 

[Alabaster]

...like I said, it can be a little discomforting but realizing the reality does not deter my faith in Christ.

I pray that Jesus informs you of your error right quick.

 

[whitney]

Yes, in fact there are indeed Bible verses that support the idea that Yahweh is a son of "EL, and the Israelites derived from a polytheist culture embracing Yahweh as the God of their own:

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NASB

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
(The Canaan most high, just like archaeology tells us)

When He separated the sons of man,
(divided up the nations)

He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.
(We know from the Septuagint, and more recently from the Dead Sea Scrolls, this should read “Sons of God†and not "Sons of Israel")

For the LORD'S portion is His people;
(Yahweh is the Lord in reference)

Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

--end verses--

So "El" assigns the nations of people according to the number of sons of God; his sons of God.

And we know this from Archaeology; El and his wife Asherah had 70 divine sons, from which archaeology tells us that Yahweh as one of this sons. (De Moore 1980, 175)

Ugaritic text indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

"The name of the son of god, Yahweh."

Read more: Torah, Ugartic Bible Torah, Ugartic Bible

In reality, there is probably good reason why people hold a sola scriptura view, because the reality is discomforting.

YIKES!


View attachment 1779

 

[Tabasco Breath]

I pray that Jesus informs you of your error right quick.

It'll be okay. Kind of like Jesus setting straight the dogma of his time, some things are not what those who make doctrine hold them out to be.

 

[Harvest]

Tabasco is this thread not about the dangers of basing a whole philosphy on one verse - it seems to me that by continually quoting Deuterony 32:8-9 as proof that your view is correct is proving Alabasters point. Having said that I strongly believe that your interpretation of these verses is way off the mark. The Lord Most High is Yahweh and the dividing of the nations points back to a historical event in that Yahweh had intended men to spread out across the earth but in disobedience they gathered at Babel to erect a city and of course attempted to build the infamous tower as a symbol of mans independence - the confusion of the languages resulted in the dispersal of the nations.

Further the pantheon of deities that you refer to are they not those such as Baal, Asherah, Dagon - the false gods of the Caananite nation (yes as I stated earlier in the thread Yahweh is ranked there but that doesnt give validity to your claim - other than Yahweh they are false gods and if they manifest any power at all they are undoubtedly demonic and ALL subservient to Yahweh who is also known as El Shaddai, Elohim, YHWH Jireh, YHWH Rapha, - the list of names goes on and each one reveals the breadth and depth of our Almighty God.

Incidentally didnt the Caananite nation descend from Caanan - the cursed grandson of Noah. Is it surprising that the theology of Caanan is a little less than sound. Also why do you see that the fact that God selected Jacob as his portion as suggestive that Yahweh is subservient. The whole earth and all its nations are His but the whole theme of Scripture is the plan of salvation that comes to us - all the nations are blessed through Gods chosen people! God has never chosen the strong but always the weak to demonstrate his Almighty power.

As for your insistence that Israel had its roots in Polytheisn. Its just not so as there is absolutely no mention of the founder of Israel Jacob ever following other Gods so your claim falls on its face right there. Yes throughout history many have lost there way and been misguided but God has always held a remnant who are faithful and acknowledge That Lord our God, the Lord is One.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Tabasco is this thread not about the dangers of basing a whole philosphy on one verse - it seems to me that by continually quoting Deuterony 32:8-9 as proof that your view is correct is proving Alabasters point. Having said that I strongly believe that your interpretation of these verses is way off the mark. The Lord Most High is Yahweh and the dividing of the nations points back to a historical event in that Yahweh had intended men to spread out across the earth but in disobedience they gathered at Babel to erect a city and of course attempted to build the infamous tower as a symbol of mans independence - the confusion of the languages resulted in the dispersal of the nations.

Further the pantheon of deities that you refer to are they not those such as Baal, Asherah, Dagon - the false gods of the Caananite nation (yes as I stated earlier in the thread Yahweh is ranked there but that doesnt give validity to your claim - other than Yahweh they are false gods and if they manifest any power at all they are undoubtedly demonic and ALL subservient to Yahweh who is also known as El Shaddai, Elohim, YHWH Jireh, YHWH Rapha, - the list of names goes on and each one reveals the breadth and depth of our Almighty God.

Incidentally didnt the Caananite nation descend from Caanan - the cursed grandson of Noah. Is it surprising that the theology of Caanan is a little less than sound. Also why do you see that the fact that God selected Jacob as his portion as suggestive that Yahweh is subservient. The whole earth and all its nations are His but the whole theme of Scripture is the plan of salvation that comes to us - all the nations are blessed through Gods chosen people! God has never chosen the strong but always the weak to demonstrate his Almighty power.

As for your insistence that Israel had its roots in Polytheisn. Its just not so as there is absolutely no mention of the founder of Israel Jacob ever following other Gods so your claim falls on its face right there. Yes throughout history many have lost there way and been misguided but God has always held a remnant who are faithful and acknowledge That Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Hi Harvest, I understand Albaster's point and actually I do agree with him/her. My point was to really understand the Bible; one would even have to go beyond the Bible. The most important perspective to grasp when it comes to the Bible is doing the best to place one into that era’s paradigm. That paradigm goes beyond just the Bible. In going beyond the Bible, I have touched upon the two translations of the Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, and discovered Ugarit texts. So that is why I use the verse as well as relevant data to make the point.

So Yahweh is dividing the nations amongst the Sons of God, and he gives himself Israel? Kind of describes a Pantheon doesn't it?

Moreover Harvest, we have written Chinese language that dates back 8,000 years ago, so it's kind of hard to give the Tower of Babel confusing the language story, which is mythology, credibility as a valid account of history. They relayed the imagery of God in story, they relayed who, how, and why of their human condition is story; no different then other cultures back then. That was the common genre' then. They are specific cultural traditions which explain for example Canaan through the Noah tradition as being established by a descendent of Noah, when in reality Canaan existed long before that. For all intents and purposes this ( Canaan) is where they derived from and is why they break away from those “EL†Ancient Near East traditions to establish themselves as a people, with the Son of El, "Yahweh" as the God of their own once they took on the Jacob identity.

 

[Tailgunner]

I was really thinking I was going to enjoy this thread, which was meant to be a study of why it's important to read any Bible verses in the context in which they were written. However, Tabasco Breath, you seem to have singlehandedly derailed it by continually posting about El, Asherah, etc.

Please contribute to the thread in a constructive way, or quit detracting from it by your constant allusions to the polytheistic roots of ancient Israel. I, for one, would be most appreciative.

Alabaster, continue please...

TG

 

[Harvest]

Hi Harvest, I understand Albaster's point and actually I do agree with him/her. My point was to really understand the Bible; one would even have to go beyond the Bible. The most important perspective to grasp when it comes to the Bible is doing the best to place one into that era’s paradigm. That paradigm goes beyond just the Bible. In going beyond the Bible, I have touched upon the two translations of the Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls, and discovered Ugarit texts. So that is why I use the verse as well as relevant data to make the point.

So Yahweh is dividing the nations amongst the Sons of God, and he gives himself Israel? Kind of describes a Pantheon doesn't it?

Moreover Harvest, we have written Chinese language that dates back 8,000 years ago, so it's kind of hard to give the Tower of Babel confusing the language story, which is mythology, credibility as a valid account of history. They relayed the imagery of God in story, they relayed who, how, and why of their human condition is story; no different then other cultures back then. That was the common genre' then. They are specific cultural traditions which explain for example Canaan through the Noah tradition as being established by a descendent of Noah, when in reality Canaan existed long before that. For all intents and purposes this ( Canaan) is where they derived from and is why they break away from those “EL†Ancient Near East traditions to establish themselves as a people, with the Son of El, "Yahweh" as the God of their own once they took on the Jacob identity.

Tabasco I really dont know where to start with this post as its so full of holes I could drive a truck through it but TG is correct and this thread has taken off in a direction that it should not have and for my part in that I apologuise to you Alabaster.

Having said that its hard not to speak out against such utter rubbish, but then I guess the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob needs no defence as He the One True God and all who belong to Him would know this and further love His Word and not dismiss any part of it as mere myth. I for one hold scripture in high esteem and that is only right as ALL scripture is God breathed - inspired by God.

Incidentally most linguists and historians agree that the earliest chinese writing dates from the Shang Dynasty - some four millenia shy of your estimation. Perhaps your misunderstanding has arisen from radio carbon dating of items with pictograms- the artefacts may be older but the writing is later. As for the first inhabitants of Caanan wouldnt they have been washed away by the flood - but then anything that doesnt fit you assign to Myth anyway.

 

[Deavonreye]

You missed a dynasty. Regardless, just because a dynasty starts, that doesn't mean that there wasn't something before it, and there is archeological evicence of the culture going back to the time suggested ~7,600 BCE.

As for this topic, I find it humorous, "the bible in context", especially when a vital part [of which I'll leave it up to the reader to discover/understand] completely overlooks "the bible in context" when it offers that part up.

 

[whitney]

You missed a dynasty. Regardless, just because a dynasty starts, that doesn't mean that there wasn't something before it, and there is archeological evicence of the culture going back to the time suggested ~7,600 BCE.

As for this topic, I find it humorous, "the bible in context", especially when a vital part [of which I'll leave it up to the reader to discover/understand] completely overlooks "the bible in context" when it offers that part up.

The Bible in context of itself, not in the context what a vast majority of scientist "think" they know.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

I was really thinking I was going to enjoy this thread, which was meant to be a study of why it's important to read any Bible verses in the context in which they were written. However, Tabasco Breath, you seem to have singlehandedly derailed it by continually posting about El, Asherah, etc.

Please contribute to the thread in a constructive way, or quit detracting from it by your constant allusions to the polytheistic roots of ancient Israel. I, for one, would be most appreciative.

Alabaster, continue please...

TG

I'm sorry, all I am doing is responding to posts that were direct at me, and that is after I posted this on page 1, post #14;

"Perhaps Reba is correct. I digress...enjoy your thread."

...so one more time, even though Harvest as left another response to her interaction with me:

"Perhaps Reba is correct. I digress...enjoy your thread."

...sorry Harvest, but you too enjoy the thread as well, but I understand your faith view.

 

[Deavonreye]

Scientists spend years of study in their perspective fields, and years after working on it and in it. Do you know their field of study? . . . Yet make a statement of what "they 'think' they know"?

Regardless, that's not what I was refering to as per the OP [an aspect of religious dogma and "reading the bible in context"].

 

[reba]

Scientists spend years of study in their perspective fields, and years after working on it and in it. Do you know their field of study? . . . Yet make a statement of what "they 'think' they know"?

Regardless, that's not what I was refering to as per the OP [an aspect of religious dogma and "reading the bible in context"].

Over my 60+ year the scientists have changed their facts often.