Wikipedia

Talk:Yahweh/Archive 5

< Talk:Yahweh
Latest comment: 12 years ago by PiCo in topic Yahweh the Volcano God
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If I am not mistaken, this section titled "Split to make this thread more manageable" was originally listed under the title Wikipedia:Yahweh.
It appears as if the nice Wikipedia Article:Yahweh NO LONGER EXISTS, for those Wikipedia Editors who still wanted to reach some consensus on how to improve it. How can we make a Wikipedia Article: YAHWEH MORE MANAGEABLE BY DELETING IT!!!!!
How did this action take place, LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY?????
Can any member of Wikipedia [ AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT ] go back to the original Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, which had legitimately existed for more than 4-5 years and start over again?
OR, IS IT POSSIBLE, That the Original Wikipedia Article:Yahweh HAS NOT ONLY BEEN UNOFICIALLY HI-JACKED, BUT PERMANTLY DELETED, BY ONE OR MORE EDITORS OF WIKIPEDIA?
Aren't there some Wikipedia Rules that have been violated in the last few days. Who authorized the total deletetion of the original Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
Seeker02421 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

May the Editors start all over again on Wikipedia:Yahweh

Since the attempted rewriting, and renaming of the present Wikipedia Article:Yahweh has been rejected by Wikipedia, may the present Wikipedia Editors who might like to take a new approach to this article, gather together and seek a consensus for a new and different rewrite of this Article, which is presently titled "Wikipedia:Yahweh"?

If Wikipedia allowed the above mentioned "possible" solution, then wouldn't the Wikipedia Editors who liked the Yahweh ( Cannanite deity ) Article then be able to create a-brand-new-Article titled Yahweh ( Cannanite deity ) and this new Wikipedia:Yahweh { Canaanite deity } Article would hopefully no longer interfere with the rewritten-by-consensus Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.

JUST A THOUGHT

Seeker02421 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre article text about Omride Dynasty

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

PiCo recently added some very bizarre text about the Omride Dynasty. If the theory really posits this, it just makes it that much more ridiculous. Firstly, most historians and scholars don't even believe most of the characters in the Bible exist. This theory puts forth as fact that they did exist, and is entirely based on the premise that the accounts about them are partially factual. Yet, it ignores key statements in the biblical accounts; thus assuming that the writers were able to keep a complete, intelligent record, but were complete morons who didn't even know what they were doing. The theory, in that case, is also anachronistic. If Omri started the tradition 'documented' in the DDD book, why are King David and other writers before the Omri dynasty seen as worshipers of the El pantheon? Why the opposition to the principles of Baal; why no sex worship, no child sacrifice, etc? Why laws against pretty much any rite of Baal worship (cutting self, imposing balding, boiling a calf in its mother's milk)? Why the laws to destroy such worship? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The fresh perspective from IronMaidenRocks is consistent with editorial consensus that has emerged over the last couple of years. It is also consistent with the expectations of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who link to this page. Relevant to WP:NPOV, the recent edits elevated a minor point of view and marginalized major, previously documented points of view, yet without editorial consensus. Thanks to those who are working to restore a balance consistent with WP policies on notability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. Corinne68 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
[Corinne68, IronMaidenRocks's perspective is that bible is fiction - "most historians and scholars don't even believe most of the characters in the Bible exist." He doesn't say what edit of mine has got him so riled, but I think he means the statement that the Omride kings promoted the worship of Baal. It's from the DDD, not my own idea. The problem with IronMaidenRocks is that he's operating very emotionally - I don't think you could call him cool and calm in his edits or his comments. All I did was go back to the version that Jheald reverted to - and I don't even know who originally wrote that version. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are you trying to point out what you think I believe? Are you trying to tell other users not to agree with my opinions, because they conflict with their personal agendas; generating factionalism to weaken oppositional ideas? PiCo, I quite clearly indicated that, if the edit were from the DDD book, it makes the book all the more ridiculous. If what you added was from the book, that's a "good-faith" edit. I'm glad you find me so passionate, I'm sure you usually just say a snide remark to the theists and they back down. Keep fighting the fine fight! --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

wow, just when the discussion was getting somewhere, enter a new batch of fresh trolls unimpressed by anything that has been said, so the debate can start over. You know what, I am fed up with this circular approach. I will move this article to a disambiguated title and make Yahweh the disambiguation page. This should fix most semantic problems people bring to this talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong-arming a move without consensus or discussion is way out of line. What on earth were you thinking of?
The clear majority view on this talk page has long been that the article should cover both the literary Yahweh, and attempted reconstructions of the historical Yahweh, to give a rounded NPOV picture from all angles.
You personally appear to take a different view, but that does not give you license to strong-arm your views on everyone else. Jheald (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
PiCo, I see you've sandboxed some constructive improvements to the article recently. Thanks for your work. Please understand that my objections at the first post were only direct at the contents of the revision you made. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

so, in your opinion it is not out of line to keep restoring material that is blatantly off topic? Why does the "Hebrew Bible" section keep getting restored? It is ostensibly not about Yahweh, it is about the God of Israel. The Elohist section is even ostensibly about the non-Yahwist parts of the Hebrew Bible. What is this doing here? At least I tried to suggest a solution. Others just keep restoring blatantly off topic material and refuse to give a coherent explanation of what it is they want. That is what I call "out of line". If you aren't here to write an encyclopedic article based on scholarly literature, please go away and edit a blog or conservapedia. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what is out of line is when you repeatedly push your own line, after it is clear that there is consensus that this article should treat both the biblical Yahweh, and the historical Yahweh; that that is what is expected of an article like this; and it actually helps the treatment of both subjects. Jheald (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, conservapedia. Because if a person isn't making biased edits to an important article, claiming that a philosophical theory is absolutely true, they must be a whackjob. Your opinion that Elohist and Yahwist sections of the Bible even exist is baseless POV. Scholars for years have believed that the Bible's origins were from the Maccabean period, totally contradictory of the theory you are trying to put forth. The theories you are positing are little more than thought experiments, having no direct basis whatsoever; pure conjecture. Believe me, I don't like theological themes in the article anymore than you do. But the fact remains that your theory has no evidence and little consensus. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Move -- undo

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved:clear big majority already for move, which reverses a recent undiscussed move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yahweh (Canaanite deity) → Yahweh — Undo a move made without consensus, or even discussion. Jheald (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Editor Dbachmann (talk · contribs) made the moves without any discussion in reaction to some similarly contentious content moves by 88.128.132.116 (talk · contribs), it should all be undone and discussed first. Elizium23 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. What he said. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Like the others. -- Doug (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Radical rescoping of an Article should involve an RFC. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  • "Dividing a subject out to meet the needs of multiple opinions" is something we do not do (see WP:POVFORK). Instead the four articles treat naturally separatable areas:
  • Yahweh: the current article -- our main article setting out Yahweh as described in the Bible, but also critical views of that version of Yahweh (as required by WP:PSTS), firstly as shown up by literary analysis, and then in comparison to a more historical perspective. Taking those three viewpoints together is exactly what we should do, and adds to what each one delivers separately.
  • Tetragrammaton: the four letter combination YHWH, suggestions for how it should be pronounced, as related to the underlying evidence
  • God in Judaism: the nature of God as seen by Judaism today, in the light of twenty centuries of Rabbinical Jewish thought.
  • Jehovah: the history of a primarily Protestant misunderstanding of the written vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton.
"Yahweh" should direct to the first article (which it makes sense, and consensus has consistently supported, to be kept as an integrated whole). The other articles, while they may well be of genuine "see also" interest for someone who looks up "Yahweh", are essentially secondary and tangential, compared to the basic fundamental information on the subject which is what the first article provides. Which is why that is where the link Yahweh should go. Jheald (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment As it stands, over half of this article pertains to the God of the Bible as traditionally understood, while the Canaanite deity theory is a smaller section at the bottom of the page. Why should the article be titled after the smaller content section? No one has addressed why that theory should be considered theorem. Where would I find the principles for considering a scientific theory 'fact' on Wikipedia? Also, why is Dbachmann using two different signatures? It makes it look like hes two different people. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - while I probably support the original position anyway - I mildly agree with the sentiment that Yahweh as a pre-Jewish entity and the Yahweh of the early bible should be treated in the same article, the argument that process has not been followed is a much stronger one. I am also slightly uncomfortable with the fact that admin powers were used to effect a solution which was under dispute on a talk page, in the absence of consensus. That doesn't seem like good form... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support All the arguments are made above by others. PiCo (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support The article topic is widely known as a biblical topic and receives comparatively little of its notability from ancient near east scholarship. Certainly, the article should include a substantial contribution from ancient near east scholarship, but to go against consensus, common usage, and encyclopedic expectations to narrow the scope to a mere Canaanite deity is intellectually absurd and extremely bad form. ANE.Scholar (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support and Comment I support this: the move was not discussed and POV, as well as reasons stated by others. However, I think it would be a good idea to relocate the bulk of the Near East Studies material to a separate article. This article would contain a header section and a link to the article for, say, Yahweh (Near East Studies). There's no reason this article should include a detailed rundown of every book in the Bible up to Jeremiah, comparing it to the data found through cultural studies. Also, the Bible scriptures it quotes take up over 100 places in the notes. That's a bit annoying - but hotlinking the scriptures into the text may solve this. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Support per ResidentAnthropologist and Jheald. -- Avi (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT' Whatever is the final decision, I hope that the original Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
[ WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TOTALLY DELETED AT THIS TIME! ]
will be restored as a legitimate Wikipedia Article, and that any Wikipedia Editor may post on it, and if one or more of the new Wikipedia editors of the restored Wikipedia Article:Yahweh should reach a consensus amoung themselves to write an article totally different from that Wikipedia Article:Yahweh that has just recently been deleted without any consensus, that that new Article should be allowed to be written.

Seeker02421 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

DH Section's Sub-Section Titles

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The subsection which was previously titled "Priestly view" was retitled to "The God of Israel in the Scond Temple period" (by dbachmann), however the section is about the view according to the priestly source of the documentary hypothesis. The new title would best fit a different section (not the current section) outside of the parent section that this current section resides. Also, there is a problem in that while the DH once did agreed that the P Source was post exilic, there is now a mix of positions regarding P with some placing it before the exile (thus, first temple period), a small few during the exile, and traditionalist who hold that it is post-exilic (which could still be — technically — pre-2nd temple period, depending on the actual timing). It would seem better to return to the previous subsection title of "Priestly view" (or something very akin to it) which would return it to being NPOV and avoid all the squabble about when P was created.

Another related comment is the change of the earlier subsection to "Elohist view of Elohim". While I can appreciate the editor's attempt to make the title reflect the distinguishing characteristic views of YHWH of each source, this title is somewhat misleading. The E Source is distinguished (from J) by its use of Elohim ("the god") before Ex 3.14, however, after this point, the E Source uses YHWH when referring to the deity just as J does. It should be noted that P also uses the term Elohim before the revelation on the mountain. I would say we should just return this subsection title back to "Elohist view" or something very akin to it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe avoid the use of subtitles/subsections, just have a section titled Documentary Hypothesis? But in fact this isn't the DH at all - the DH is a theory about the origin of the Torah, but the Priestly work or strand (and also the Deuteronomist) runs through just about every book of the bible. Not sure what it should be called, but Doc Hyp is definitely not right. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. The "Elohist view of YHWH" section should describe Elohist mentions of the theonym YHWH. This is not what the section as it stands is doing. Also, any claim that the Elohist source mentions this or that theonym needs to be referenced to quotable literature, as it is very much a matter of opinion which passages are old and which are due to later redaction. I do invite you to turn the "Elohist" section into something that actually discusses literature on proposed Elohist mentions of YHWH. As long as the material that concerns the Elohist theology in general is removed and the section is made to treat literature discussing the Elohist view of Yahweh (not Elohim) I will obviously agree that such a section is on topic.

In my opinion, the Priestly source is too late altogether to make a distinction between Elohim and Yahweh. But if there is literature explicitly discussing a "Priestly view of Yahweh" (as opposed to a generic priestly view of the God of Israel), of course the "Priestly" section can also remain. The important thing is that the literature cited needs to be explicit about discussing Yahweh specifically, not generic Yahweh-Elohim-HaShem-Adonai --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps more fundamentally there is needed some review of scholarly opinion as to whether (and when) "generic Yahweh-Elohim-HaShem-Adonai" did all refer to one entity, and when not.
For example, if we look at the text of some of the earliest prophets, are these titles used interchangeably? A traditionalist view would be that they all always refer to the same entity; but I image even a scholarly view would that, at least much of the time, even going right back to the putative ur-texts, these are different titles for the same entity, rather than real holdovers of references to different entities. Jheald (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need to touch on HaShem/Adonai - those words belong to the rabbinic period, and Yahweh is the Iron Age god.
The idea that the god ("elohim") of Israel did not reveal his name (Yahweh) before the time of Moses (Book of Exodus) is specifically Priestly - Jahwistic passages in Genesis routinely have characters using it, beginning with a speech by Eve in Genesis 4 ("I have made a man by Yahweh"). So I guess you can say that this is piece of distinctively Priestly theology - certainly worth mentioning.
Also worth mentioning in this context (i.e., the bible's theology of Yahweh) is that calling Yahweh the "god of Israel" doesn't imply that other gods aren't real - in Exodus Yahweh is compared to the gods of Israel, and the text notes specifically that these gods are weaker than Yahweh - but it doesn't say they aren't real. PiCo (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair point about HaShem/Adonai, I was just picking up on DBachmann's rhetoric.
The first bigger question is whether this article should also be covering "Elohim" (and "El Shaddai"), when those phrases are being used as parallel titles for the same entity "Yahweh". In my view they should, just as for example an article on Charles, Prince of Wales would also cover actions he takes in Scotland as "Duke of Rothesay". We're trying to cover the entity not the name. In the biblical section, people have sometimes suggested that this should only trace actions explicity ascribed to "Yahweh", and not discuss any instances where only "Elohim" occurs (eg Genesis 1). This I think is wrong. To the extent that the Bible as we have it appears to intend the same entity (ie pretty much always), that's what that section of the article should cover (or at least summarise, if it needs to hand off details to a more detailed article).
From there, I think it is useful to say that the Bible appears to (or at least does according to a strong line of opinion) combine different strands that have subtly different takes on the entity - at the simplest level, Jahwistic, Elohistic, and Priestly; and what is characteristic about those different takes needs to be discussed.
I'm interested that above you identify the idea that "the god ("elohim") of Israel did not reveal his name (Yahweh) before the time of Moses (Book of Exodus)" as specifically Priestly. Our article Elohist identifies this as a characteristic of the E source.
But anyway, that I think is why it is useful to have a "Documentary Hypothesis" section -- it does have a specific role here, as to how different identified strands do subtly differently present the nature of God; which I think (with regard to what you've written in the next section of the talk page) is quite well handled on its own, in its own section, discussing a primarily literary analysis of the text; separate to the next section, that discusses the background development of Yahweh/Yahwism from a more archaeological and histrical stand point. Jheald (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on the content and structure of the article

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I sense that there's a high degree of dissatisfaction with the article at the moment. To me it seems bloated and unfocused. So here are my thoughts on what needs to be decided:

First sentence of lead

There have been two competing first sentences, each carrying a different message for what the article is about. One version says that "Yahweh is the name of a god...", or words to that effect. The other says "Yahweh is a god", or variations on that. If the subject a name, then most of what's in the article is irrelevant. If it's a god, then the name is incidental and needs just a brief mention.

Name

The section on the name is only necessary if the article is about the god - in it's about the name, then a separate section isn't needed.

In the Hebrew bible

I quite agree that we need to discuss how the bible pictures Yahweh. But I don't like the way it's being done right now - a long collection of block-quotes (a quote-farm in fact). It should be re-drafted, based on scholars who are also theologians - Blenkinsopp, for example.

Documentary Hypothesis and Early History of Yahwism

These two really need to be combined. And shortened. Do we really need to go on and on about the Documentary Hypothesis like this? And do we actually mean the DH, anyway? - the DH is a theory about the origin of the Torah, but what I gather is meant in this section is sources of the entire bible (it better be, since Yahweh is found everywhere in the HB).

I think we need to discuss these questions, and maybe others, with a view to shortening and sharpening the article. PiCo (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be easier to discuss this in separate subsections. But in brief:
(1) The article is principally about the god -- as conveyed both within the Bible and outside it. But a sentance (or perhaps a note) that the unvocalised YHWH is the only Hebrew form that appeared before 800 CE, and Yahweh is a modern "best guess" scholarly convention to represent it is perhaps not out of place, even in the lead.
(2) The section is useful, if only to gracefully hand on the reader to the article Tetragrammaton if they want to know more.
(3) Agreed, the current section seems to be arbitrarily chosen random quotes; if we are going to make a selection of things to present, we need to reference who is identifying the various elements of that selection as being revealing/significant, and develop some sort of consistent criteria.
(4) As just discussed above, I think there is some structural value in looking at what comes from the more literary source-criticism first in its own section, separate to a more wide-ranging historical section.
The focus of the DH section should not be the sources themselves, but rather how some see different consistent strands in the presentation of God, running through the whole Bible (though the distinctive strands have been most recognised in the Torah, so the Torah focus isn't entirely misplaced).
As for shortening: perhaps; but this is our main article on the subject, so we should not lose important views, especially where there is a multiplicity of opinion; and we must be careful to leave it clear to the reader as to how much is conjectural, since that can get lost in simplification, and we don't want to present the opinion as more monolithic and more indubitable than it perhaps deserves. Jheald (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Jheald wrote:
"(1) snip/snip But a sentance (or perhaps a note) that the unvocalised YHWH is the only Hebrew form that appeared before 800 CE, and Yahweh is a modern "best guess" scholarly convention to represent it is perhaps not out of place, even in the lead."
Jheald, I for one, join you in recommending that your sentence above, or a similar sentence, should be in the lead. Would any other editors like to add their name to this "present consensus" of two editors who would like the above sentence to be in the lead of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh?
Of course I would also like to point the viewers of the Wikipedia Article to Tetragrammaton and specifically to Section 3.2.5 which is titled: "The Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D." This section shows a very interesting table in which the six different variant spellings of YHWH, which occur in the extant Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010 A.D., are found.
The knowledge of these six different variants of YHWH continues to the twentieth century, where they become even more important after scholars have copied the actual text of the very bulky Leningrad Codex into much more manageable 20th century BHS Hebrew Bibles, which can be purchased for much less than $60.00.
Thus the four new English translations of the Hebrew Text that were published after 1905 A.D., were all derived from BHS Texts.
If you look closely at the table in Tetragrammaton you will find a column titled "Close transcription"
In that colum you will find 6 different close transcriptions of the six variants of YHWH which are found in the Leningrad Codex as shown below:
1.Yǝhōwāh
2.Yǝhwāh
3.Yĕhōwih
4.Yĕhwih
5.Yǝhōwih
6.Yǝhwih
The lay person does not have to examine these six variant "close transcriptions" very long to realize that not one of these close transciptions of YHWH looks very much like "Yahweh".
Yet it is a verifiable fact that in the following 4 translations of the BHS Hebrew text, the English spelling "Y-a-h-w-e-h" occurs 6823 times.
1. Rotherham's "The Emphasized Bible" published in 1905.
2. The Jerusalem Bible published by the Roman Catholic Church
3. The New Jerusalem Bible published by the Roman Catholic Church
4. The NIVIHEOT
FWI
P.S. Would any Wiikipedia Editor like to join Jheald and myself in trying to form a consensus of editors that would like to see Jheald's comment above written in the Lead section of Wikipedia:Yahweh?
Seeker02421 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Was is not about a year ago that we all agreed the article's focus was on the god, and specifically not about the name itself, and that further, that we would include (just) a brief mention of the name issue, directing people to the Tetra article if they were interested in following the name info further? What precipitated after that decision was a reworking of the article, particularly the removal of many paragraphs discussing the name (which got relocated, in part, into the Tetra article). I believe we all agreed, then, that the excessive use of block quoting was bad, and some efforts were made to fix that, however, they were relatively small changes, and nobody really jumped in and reworked those sections. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've just added Jheald's suggestion on the vocalisation to the beginning of the very first sentence of the lead. Hope this is acceptable.

In the process I removed a note about Yahweh being the name of a god in Northwest Semitic. I'm puzzled by this - so far as I know, Hebrew is the absolutely sole Northwest Semitic language that has a god named Yahweh. There's an inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud, c800 BCE, that mentions a "Yahweh of Teman", which is a place in Edom - but the inscription itself is in Hebrew. And there's a famous Egyptian inscription from the 14th century that mentions "Shasu of YHW", which again seems to be a place in Edom - but not a god. So that leaves Yahweh as a uniquely Hebrew god with possible connections with Edom. So what's this about Northwest Semitic?

Now the important bit: I've sandboxed a re-write of the section on the name, and this is for comment - it's from the DDD, and there may be material in the existing section that could be combined with it (and perhaps it could be shortened). Here it is:

It is widely agreed that the name represents a verbal form in the third person masculine imperfect. This interpretation lies behind Exodus 3:14, where God gives his name as אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh), "I am who I am", and tells Moses to tell the Israelites, "I Am has sent me to you." Here the root HWH is understood as a by-form of HYH, "to be", and the third-person prefix Y as a first person, so that YHWH is interpreted as 'HYH, "I am".
The meaning of the statement "I am who I am" is unclear: it might be a promise ("I will be present"), or possibly a statement of incomparability ("I am without equal").
The actual root and meaning are obscure. Some scholars have suggested a connection with the Hebrew root HWY, resulting in the translation "The Destroyer", but it is generally held to be connected with another root meaning "to be". Opinions differ as to whether the meaning is basic ("he is, he manifest himself") or causative ("he causes to be, calls into being").
However, it is widely agreed that Yahweh was originally from Edom or Midian, and a major problem with explanations based on HWY is that they seek to explain a South Semitic name by means of West Semitic etymology. The name YHWH has its closest analogies in the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon, and comparisons with Arabic suggest a meaning "to fall", so that the name means "He causes to fall" - i.e., rain, lightening, and his enemies - or "he blows". This is consistent with those explanations which see the God of Israel as originally a storm-god.[1]

PiCo (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo
I Thank you for your edit of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh. You wrote:
"I've just added Jheald's suggestion on the vocalisation to the beginning of the very first sentence of the lead. Hope this is acceptable."
I am certainly pleased with what you wrote. As far as I am aware, what you did fully agrees with Wikipedia policy for the lead. I believe that it can be clearly shown that Wikipedia Policy is to discuss "notable controversies" such as the name "Yahweh" in the lead section, and if necessary to follow up with more details in the Introduction, and if further details appear to be neccesary for the full understanding of what is being disussed in the article, then it was acceptable to follow up with more details in the first section that appears in the Table of contents.
Seeker02421 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

active voice & years for sources in the lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This paragraph replaces the old paragraph about Yahweh in the four sources of the Torah. It's superior to what was there because the sentences are structured actively and it provides years for each source.

Modern Biblical scholars, using [[source criticism]], find different treatments of Yahweh in the four distinct, major sources that were redacted into the [[Torah]].<ref>S. David Sperling, Modern Jewish Interpretation, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) p. 1909</ref> For example, in the Jahwist source (which was written ''c'' 950 BCE<ref>"Yahwist source." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov. 2010 [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/651208/Yahwist-source]</ref>), Yahweh is anthropomorphic, visits people, and use the name Yahweh prior to Exodus 3.<ref name="Mark Zvi Brettler 2004 pp. 3-7" /> In the [[Elohist]] source (''c'' 850 BCE<ref name ="Harris 4S">[[Stephen L Harris|Harris, Stephen L.]], Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "Four Principal Sources of the Pentateuch." p. 48.</ref>), Yahweh is typically referred to as [[Elohim]], and he appears more impersonal (for example, speaking through dreams and angels rather than appearing in person).<ref>Mark Zvi Brettler, Introduction to Torah, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) p. 5; Elliott Rabin, Understanding the Hebrew Bible: a reader’s guide (2006), pp. 114-115; Alan W Jenks, Elohist, The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 2, Doubleday (1992), pp. 478-482</ref> In the the [[Deuteronomist]] source (''c'' 650–651 BCE<ref name ="Harris 4S"/>), Yahweh is particularly concerned with whether Judah’s kings were good or bad and with centralized temple worship.<ref>Steven L. McKenzie, Deuteronomistic History, The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. 2, Doubleday (1992), p. 162; Mark Zvi Brettler, Introduction to Torah, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) pp. 3-7</ref> The [[Priestly source]] (''c'' 550–400<ref name ="Harris 4S"/>) portrays Yahweh as acting through the Aaronid priesthood and temple-based sacrificial system.<ref>Mark Zvi Brettler, Introduction to Torah, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) pp. 3-7</ref>

Someone, probably a defender of a religious POV, keeps reverting it. Leadwind (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, in the Elohist source, the God of Israel is referred to as Elohim, not "Yahweh". Yahweh doesn't even appear in the Elohist source (with some exceptions(?)). The entire point is that Elohim was separate from Yahweh, and this article needs to discuss the original Yahweh before he got conflated with Elohim. Otherwise you are really just duplicating God of Israel. Please stop discussing Elohim and other off topic material in this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

scope duplication

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Please either remove the content pertaining to the God of Israel and the Tetragrammaton, or else merge the article into God of Israel and Tetragrammaton, per WP:CFORK. This article cannot discuss YHWH as a name of the God of Israel after the redaction of the Pentateuch, because at that point it is just one name of the God of Israel. The only purpose of this article title I can perceive would be a discussion of the reconstructed deity before the redaction of the Pentateuch. Needless to say, the Pentateuch cannot be cited as a source for that. Only scholarly reconstructions based on the Pentateuch which reconstruct the deity as it was before the redaction need be considered. This means that more than half of this article's content needs to go as off topic or original synthesis.

Please note that you cannot just build a "consensus" to ignore policy and write a second, third or fourth parallel article on the God of Israel. WP:CFORK isn't negotiable and you cannot build ad hoc "consensus" to violate project principles. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep harping on about "God of Israel". The title and scope of the actual article that we have is God in Judaism, and its scope is very much setting out the philosophical views on theology in Judaism as of the 21st century CE, shaped primarily by some twenty centuries of discussion by Rabbinical Judaism, not retelling some Bible tales.
If you're concerned about "God of Israel", there's a simple fix. That redirect should redirect here, because this is the acticle that actually has the content; if you like, with a hatnote here saying "for contemporary theological discussion see God in Judaism". Jheald (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no article God of Israel - it's a redirect to God in Judaism. That article is almost exclusively about the theology of God in modern Judaism (though YHWH gets dragged in, Buddha help me). So there's no overlap with an article that restricts itself to the god Yahweh - who, incidentally, appears quite a lot in the Torah.
I think what dab is getting at is that there are two Yahwehs. One of them is known from archaeology - some seal impressions with his name and a few inscriptions. The other is the literary Yahweh of the bible. The first one is a comparatively objective source of information, although interpretations differ; the second is totally subjective, being the work of a long line 8th century prophets, 7th century reformers, 6th century theologians, 5th century polemicists, and 4th century creative artists (and later). PiCo (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As I stated, the sections that have the problem Dbachmann cites are already tagged. There is no needed to tag the whole article. LittleJerry (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
there is. So far, nobody has been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation what this article is even about. If you have one, let's hear it. If you want to separate God of Israel from God in Judaism, I will support this. In fact, we could simply move this article to God of Israel, and then fix the remaining issues of scope overlap with God in Judaism constructively. Yahweh would then become a disambiguation page pointing to God of Israel (this article), YHWH (Tetragrammaton) and Yahweh (Canaanite deity). I would be happy with such a solution, and I could finally focussing on writing the article about the Canaanite deity without disruption form our religionist pov pushers. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Your persistance with this is starting to become almost as tiresome as Seeker. We've had this discussion, and the clear consensus was that discussion of the archaeological Yahweh helps inform discussion of the biblical Yahweh; discussion of the biblical Yahweh helps inform discussion of the archaeological Yahweh; so it makes sense to treat the two at least at summary level in the same article.
You've raised all this before. It's been discussed -- at length. A consensus was clear. Now, move on.
I've now changed the God of Israel redirect to point here; and removed the "duplication" tag -- because the truth is, there is no other article that duplicates this one. Jheald (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, since it has been my complaint that this is in fact the "God of Israel" article, I am fully satisfied if it is now made the "God of Israel" article explicitly also in name. The only thing that is now off topic is the discussion of the early worship of Yahweh, and the name "Yahweh" itself (should be merged into Yahweh (Canaanite deity)), and the use of "Yahweh" in modern Christianity (should be merged into Sacred Name Movement). Apart from that, we finally have an article that actually discusses what it says on the tin.
The new challenge now is, of course, the delineation of this article from God in Judaism. This is possible, but it needs to be performed with care. "God in Judaism" should be about Rabbinical theology, 200 CE to present, while "God of Israel" should be about the national god of the Israelites / Jews in antiquity, 800 BCE to 200 CE. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wohow, with this move you claim that the Bible is (f)actual history and that there was really an ancient tribe named Israel that worshiped one deity YHWH as the Bible describes it. The facts are, however, that there was some tribe called Israel (or something similar), but there is no substantial information about any deity worship whatsoever. This article definitely need a massive rewrite now. "God of Israel" is purely based on Jewish doctrine. "The God of Israel (Hebrew אלהי ישראל) is the national god of the ancient Israelites" is an claim that lacks all historical and archaeological evidence. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

um, what? I claim no such thing. Please do not go out of your way to construct such bizarre allegations. The "ancient Israelites" are simply the population of the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, 960 to 580 BCE. Nobdody makes any claim beyond that. "God of Israel" ( אלהי ישראל) is simply a quote from the text of the Hebrew Bible. It's what this god was called. I am under the impression that there is nothing wrong with articles about deities going by the name under which these deities were actually known? The Quetzalcoatl article is so called because that's what this god was called, not because we claim there were prehistoric plumed serpents in Mesoamerica. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
But there was no Israel as the Bible describes it. That is the problem. "God of Israel" is what much later adherents of Judaism have projected back into history. For all we know the population of the area were polytheists up until the 6th century BCE. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The article made much more sense when the archaeological and biblical aspects were both included in the "Yahweh" article. If there are to be two articles is would be better to have this one called "Yahweh (Biblical deity)".ANE.Scholar (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaronid priesthood?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is "Aaronid" a real word, or a typo for "Aaronic?" The linked article doesn't use either word, and Google doesn't show a lot of hits for "Aaronid." Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Use Aaronic; I don't see a good source for "Aaronid". Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's used all over the place in Priestly source, change it all in that article too? Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Google books finds 2760 hits [1]. The derivation is straightforward enough, Aaron + id, meaning to do with the children of Aaron (cf Maimonides#Name, Nachmanides#Name etc).
It's slightly more precise than "Aaronic", because it incorporates the idea of descendency.
So there's at least some case for keeping it, unless people feel it is too obscure. Jheald (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
"Aaronid" is a real word - it's the usual word used in scholarly books about this subject. What's the linked article that you're mentioning? PiCo (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please use descendants of Aaron. Aaronid means little more (it is slightly more compatible with a suggestion the descent may be fictitious) and is evidently not helpful to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments14 people in discussion

{{Requested move/dated|Yahweh}}

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

God of Israel → Yahweh — Dbachmann appears to be on a one-man mission to sever discussion of Yahweh as (tentatively) discovered by archaeology from Yahweh as presented in the Bible. This requested move is to undo a rename he has made without discussion, only six weeks after an essentially identical restructuring that he made, again without discussion, gained no support here. His latest action should similarly be undone, and the title of the article returned to Yahweh as it was. --Jheald (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the move has caused in excess of 500 links to now point to a redirect page, rather than here as intended. Jheald (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "God of Israel" does not equal "Yahweh". Well, indeed an article "God of Israel" is superfluous, since there already is an article about "God in Judaism". And an article titled "God of Israel" would be misnamed if it is supposed to refer to the "God in Judaism" since the actual religion of actual ancient Israelites is definitely not what the Bible conveys. However, I find it acceptable that "Yahweh" should lead to a disambiguation page. And maybe this article should be renamed "Yahweh (Levantine deity)". ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, no. The Yahweh article was about the deity (and not just in the narrow biblical/jewish/christian sense), not the name and its spelling or pronunciation or utterance. ≡ CUSH ≡ 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Not really. The scope of this article (at least as it was under the name Yahweh) runs wider than just what is conceived by anything one would want to give the name Judaism to; it also covers earlier belief systems. It's true that there are other names of God in Judaism; but, at least by the time the Bible texts were finalised, these were all seen just as differet names for the same one entity whose standard name was written YHWH. It's a good question to ask whether these different epithets, and the information related about them in the Bible, all described the same single entity in origin; but that is one of the questions that is a fair question for the article to examine, from the standpoint of an article that discusses all evolutions of what was known as YHWH. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move back. This change of name, while making some small amount of sense, really doesn't seem appropriate in terms of the information contained in the article. SilverserenC 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Move it back. Links should go to article, not disambiguation page. The creation of "Canaanite diety" and "God of Israel" page was POV and against consensus. Is there a mechanism to ban the offending editor from editing the Yahweh page? ANE.Scholar (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. After all, Israelites were Canaanites and they worshiped the same deities. The distinction is arbitrary and solely based on religious convictions along the lines of the Chosen-people-ideology (which is inherently racist). ≡ CUSH ≡ 06:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Dbachman's edits since the move, which were primarily in regards to changing content to support the move, should probably be reverted as well to coincide with this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support God of Israel does not necessarily equate to YHWH/Yahweh/Yehowah. Some could say that the god of Israel was El, and seperate from YHWH. Then there is the question of the connection between Yahu / Yaw, if any, to YHWH. The scope of this article (under the title "Yahweh" was fairly well defined, separate G-in-J article, and separate from the Tetra article). There are so many asterisks that one would have to put next to "God of Israel" with this articles content that it just be dumb to call it that. Best to return it to Yahweh. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and revert to a version consistent with this title. Yahweh is a good topic and significantly different in scope to God of Israel. The article topic should not have been unilaterally changed. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert to match move

Could someone please update the lead and any other links which were changed as part of this move? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been done [2]. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

well, then we are back to {{cleanup-rewrite}}. I do not understand why people simply stall attempts to resolve this without being able to present a coherent explanation of what they think this article is supposed to be about. This article appears to be about the God of Israel in some parts, but then we get a few confused editors who insist it is about "Yahweh", but not about YHWH. It is my conviction at this point that these editors either do not have an idea about the issues involved, or alternatively that they are deliberately sabotaging an encyclopedic discussion of the topic for reasons best known to themselves, likely religious. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to want to forcibly turn "deity assigned to ancient Israel by later Judaism" to "God of Israel". Stop using the Bible as a source for historical information. There is no whatsoever hint derived from archaeology and historical research that people in the ancient southern Levant were ever restricted to one deity or that no-one else ever worshiped Yahweh. And it is just a silly assumption in the first place, as if religious convictions could have ever been limited based on political territorial boundaries. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Please don't restrict Yahweh to the Bible"

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Cush put this explanation for a recent revert: "Please don't restrict Yahweh to the Bible." I'd like to ask: Why not? I'm not aware of any evidence that Yahweh was worshiped anywhere but in Israel and Judah, or that the name is found, for certain, in any archaeological site outside those two. (The famous Egyptian quote relates to a place, not a god). I can quote the DDD to that effect. What evidence is there to the contrary?PiCo (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As we have determined many times now, this article does not focus on the name but on the deity. And why would Yah(weh)-worship be restricted to Israel and Judah even in pre-kingdom times? Enki/Ea/Yah(weh) was worshiped throughout the ANE in various contexts and with various characteristics assigned to the deity, but it is still the same deity all over the region. ≡ CUSH ≡ 12:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Leadwind (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You have a good source saying that Yah ever existed? (As a name of a god I mean). DDD says he didn't. PiCo (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Wikipedia Article claims that Yahweh is .... "notably the god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible". Is there actually an extant Hebrew Bible somewhere on the planet earth in which the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" occurs even one time? If there is such a Hebrew Bible would some editor please add a citation specifying in which specific Hebrew Bible the Hebrew spelling "Yahweh" occurs.
Seeker02421 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Stop it right there, Seeker. We will not get into a discussion over your favorite issue for the 100th time. We've been through this for some years now. Grow up. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted OR cited to primary sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I deleted the paragraph that was all cited to the Bible. It's not our place as editors to decide how to read primary sources to build a picture of a deity. Please see WP:OR. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks. ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Next up, the paragraph about God in the four sources of the Torah needs to be changed, since only one of those sources is really about "Yahweh." The other three sources describe about the God of Israel (lately identified with Yahweh). The paragraph should focus on who "Yahweh" is (the anthropomorphic deity) and mention the other treatments only by way of comparison. Leadwind (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No. This is our article for both "God of Israel" and "Yahweh", as the redirect and the boldface in the first paragraph establish. This is appropriate, because, by repeatedly confirmed consensus, this article is supposed to cover all phases of the history of Yahweh. By the time the Bible texts were finalised, it is very clear that all these epithets were identified as different names for the same one entity whose standard name was written YHWH.
These question of whether these different epithets, and the information related about them in the Bible, all described the same single entity in origin is one that it is appropriate for the article to examine. Religious tradition, upheld by orthodox Judaism to this day, is that they did. If you want to put up material to the contrary, it needs to present the range and balance of what reliable sources have to say on the question. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion around here as to what the documentary hypothesis is all about. It's a theory about the origin of the Pentateuch only, not the entire bible - just four books. The bit about the name "Yahweh" applies only to Genesis - after Genesis all four sources call God "Yahweh". It should be deleted.PiCo (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand we ought to have something discussing the relationship between the name Yahweh and the other names used in the Hebrew Bible for the subject of this article. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That can be done, probably in a section discussing the history of Yahweh, insofar as it's known. The bibliography section probably already has good resources. But the main point I want to make is that the documentary hypothesis/4 sources don't merit a whole section, just a sentence of so. PiCo (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What the section is a proxy for, I think, is a section for arguments made about the history of Yahweh that have been based on the text alone -- in particular, obviously, arguments about how much syncretism may or may not have got wrapped up in the final understanding of the entity. I also think it's at least useful to flag up the idea that the finalised text of the Hebrew bible may inherit from a range of different texts that may have a variety of perspectives on the entity (including, potentially, it not actually being the same entity at all).
I think there is some value in treating such lines of enquiry, which can be identified as a distinct form of criticism, and which historically did start earlier, and as we do before wading in to the full archaeological comparison. I think it makes the article more digestible, as something we can treat in a separate 'bite'; I also think it may better match our readers' expectations, based on what they think they already know. Jheald (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeker, again

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Precisely when was the name "Yahweh"first used in the English Language? Since there is presently a Wikipedia Article titled "Yahweh" why doesn't some editor try to explain on the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh precisely when the English word Yahweh first appeared in the English language. Is is my understanding that the name "Yahweh" never even existed as an English word until the middle of the 19th century, although the German word "Jahveh" existed in Gesenius's German Lexicon in 1815 A.D. Why doesn't some editor go into some precise detail about the German name "Jahveh" which was first created in 1815 A.D. by the Hebrew Scholar Gesenius, and the then follow up with the history of the English word "Yahweh" which was first used in the middle of the 19th century, and has had a long history since then as it is still being used in 2011 A.D. There appears to be absolutely no known history of the German word "Jahveh" before 1815 A.D, and I pesonally know of no documented use of the English name "Yahweh" before approximately 1863 A.D. Does any editor of Wikipedia know of any verifiable use of the word English "Yahweh" before 1863 A.D. All Wikipedia asks for is verification that the English name "Yahweh" was used anywhere on the planet earth before approximately 1863 A.D. If no verification exists, this article has no right to claim that the English name "Yahweh" ever existed before 1863 A.D. Seeker02421 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your considerations about spelling and usage are irrelevant to this article. Your only aim seems to be to demonstrate that the deity referred to in the Bible is not the deity worshiped today by the abrahamic religions. That is just silly. The identification of a deity does in no way depend on spelling, pronunciation or even using variations of the name as such.
And after 2 years of you constantly re-posting your pointless stuff, I really think it is time for another editing ban. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeker, even though I too disagree with the present scholarly consensus of pronouncing the Tetra as "Yahweh", as has been pointed out many times, this article has nothing really to do with the pronunciation, and even if "Yahweh" is the incorrect pronunciation, that spelling/pronunciation acts as a reference (a conceptual anchor of sorts) to the deity in question here. In a sense, the scholarly reference could have been the rabbinic term "hashshem" and that would have served the same purpose as using "Yahweh" in this article. In short, the actual pronunciation of the Tetra (how this deity's name is pronounced) is beside the point. If you would like to pursue your argument further, it would make more sense to do so from the Tetra article using legitimate sources to back up your claim. Doing it from here is more or less pointless. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi al-Shimoni
I've been working in the background.
I have a question. It seems to me that the same group of Wikipedia Editors that want to write an article on this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, are the same group of Wikipedia Editors that spent a lot of effort recently creating the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh (Canaanite deity).
Is there any problem with writing your article on Yahweh (Canaanite deity).
OR
Is it possible that all the editors that were involved in creating The Wikipedia Article (Canaanite deity) could start a new Wikipedia Article specifically for discussing "YAHWEH" as taught in the Roman Catholic Church New Jerusalem Bible.This new Article would of necessity have to welcome Evangelical Christians who honor God by the name Yahweh, but hopefully could exclude Sacred Name Ministries who honor the name "Yahweh"
I am throwing an idea up in the air, and certainly any newly created Wikipedia Articles would have to be approved by Wikipedia.
FWIW
Seeker02421 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Another question for all.
How many [IF ANY ] Wikipedia Editors [ when the smoke finally clears ]
would like to have a legitimate Wikipedia Article in place that would allow discussions on a Christian "YAHWEH" as He is found in the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. I realize that not all Christians approve of the Roman Catholic Church, but right-or-wrong, The Roman Catholic Church has published a widely distributed bible that approves the name "Yahweh".
Whether "Yahweh" is or is not God's correct name, does not appear to be a major question at this time.
Seeker02421 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that you turn up every couple of months an completely mess up an article about a subject that touches a religious issue, especially this Yahweh article? Whom do you seek to impress with your insubstantial rants about the identification of the biblical deity?
And why can't you adhere to the standard pattern of adding a comment to a talk page, and instead always break up the text flow and render it almost illegible?
Your edits about spelling, pronunciation and your assumed incoherency between YHWH and Yahweh have been rolled back every single time. Will you please accept that your edits serve no encyclopedic or educational purpose. Just leave it alone. ≡ CUSH ≡ 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeker, I hadn't seen the "Yahweh (Canaanite deity)" article until just now, just a brief glimpse at it after reading your mention of it. I'll have to look at it more closely before I really could comment on it in any way.
What do you mean by "your article" in your other question?
I'm not sure there is really much of a reason to create a separate article for Roman Catholic Yahweh/Yahowah, as the New Testament does not mention a Yahweh/Yahowah/YHWH by name (neither within Greek sources nor Latin Vulgate), nor is there much focus on Him in the New Testament (unless you take a trinitarian viewpoint and make Jesus equate to god). Catholic/Christian/New-Testament version of god wouldn't have a Wiki page with "Yahweh" within the title, but they could have a "God in Christianity" or a "The Trinity" article. So, no, no RC Yahweh article (and focusing on NJB translation is likely a bit fringe for Wiki). How much of that question of yours was rhetorical? — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi al-Shimoni. You wrote "I'm not sure there is really much of a reason to create a separate article for Roman Catholic Yahweh/Yahowah, as the New Testament does not mention a Yahweh/Yahowah/YHWH by name (neither within Greek sources nor Latin Vulgate), nor is there much focus on Him in the New Testament (unless you take a trinitarian viewpoint and make Jesus equate to god)."
Heck Al, there is no verifiable evidence that the Hebrew name Yahweh exists in any extant Hebrew Bible in the world, yet this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh still exists, as if the name "Yahweh" is a name that actually existed in the Hebrew Bible. Nobody seems to question that the present editors of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh have never posted verifiable evidence that the name "Yahweh" ever existed on the planet earth before the middle 19th century.
What Wikipedia moderator is ever going to question why this present article does not present verifiabile evidence that the name "Yahweh" ever existed. No Wikipedia moderator that I am aware of ever criticised the obvious lack of verifiable evidence for the existance of the name "Yahweh", before Gesenius created the German spelling "Jahveh" in 1815.A.D. Nobody seems to care that verification of when the name "Yahweh" was first known to have been used on the planet earth, can not be found in this Article.
Actually I wasn't very clear on what I hoped some of the present editors of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh might chose to do voluntarilly, to make up for what a-p-p-e-ars to have been their total "hijacking" of a previous "completely legitimate, and well written Wikipedia Article titled "Yahweh" and their t-o-t-a-l deletion of each and every word that was written in that article apparently attempting to leave no record in Wikipedia that such an article was ever written.
I was hoping that one or more of the Wikipedia editors of the present article, that was involved in the total deletion of the previous Legitimate Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, might have thought it would be the right thing to do to write a new Wikipedia Article about "Yahweh", possibly using a slightly different title. That way two well written Wikipedia Article would exist side by side for editors with different ideas of what a Wikipedia Article:Yahweh should cover.
However there may be an easier method to deal with the issue of restoring a previous Wikipedia Article that was totally deleted by a group of Wikipedia Editors who apparently did not approve of how it been wriiten, and did not wish to take the time to legimately write a new article, which would have been totally approved by Wikipedia, and would have covered precisely the information that they are trying to cover on this Present Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.
Al Shimoni. Do you think that it should have been the duty of Wikipedia Moderators to have dealt with the total deletion of a fully written Wikipedia Article:Yahweh by the current Wikipedi Editors who openly deleted every word that had been skillfully written by previous legitimate aeditors of the present Wikipedia Article
While the present editors of this Wikipedeia Article:Yahweh mistakenly believed that they had destroved all evidence of the well written text that previously existed in this present Wikipedia Article, which bears precicely the same name it had when it was first created, probably over 5-6 years ago. they are mistaken. Several copies of the previous Article exist, and actually has been slightly edited by new editors who believed that the previous Wikipedia Article:Yahweh was worthy of being preserved, and believed that they could improve what had previously been written without totally destroying and starting all over with a new sheet of paper!!!!!
P.S. al-Shimoni. Do you happen to know someone named Doug Belot, who thinks very much like you do.
Seeker02421 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeker, nobody is deleting anything. All versions of the article, going right back to its creation in 2001, can be found in the article history.

The question of the proper pronounciation of the name is discussed -- at very considerable length -- in the article Tetragrammaton at the section Tetragrammaton#Pronunciation. This article is not the place to repeat that presentation.

At the moment the lead says:

The word Yahweh is a modern scholarly convention for the Hebrew יהוה, transcribed into Roman letters as YHWH and known as the Tetragrammaton, for which the actual pronunciation is disputed.

That is a sufficent summary of the position for the lead, which has to concisely summarise the whole article. More detail is not appropriate for the lead; and the lead as a whole is as long as it should be -- it should not be made any longer.

Therefore, please, no more edits like this one: [3]. I trust you agree. Jheald (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability the following text will be found::

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[1]


Seeker02421 (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh disambiguation page

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

Yahweh (disambiguation) currently has a link to Yahweh (Canaanite deity) but nothing to this article. I don't want to touch it. Up to you lot. PiCo (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. First line of such a dab page should point to the primary article, ie this article, being the article without the word "disambiguation". Jheald (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The pointless disambiguation page was introduced by religionists to create an artificial distinction between biblical Yahweh and Canaanite Yahweh. That's the same as saying that Germans and French each have their own Jesus. Dbachmann and Seeker seek to establish a kind of uniqueness of the biblical deity for the entire ANE context. But of course that's without substance. ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dab is clearly no "religionist" trying to "create and artificial distinction between biblical Yahweh and Canaanite Yahweh". Cush this mentality of yours is exactly why your editing of this and related pages inevitably becomes disruptive. WP:BATTLEGROUND is probably apropos here. You may not agree with Dab but he's clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia per his academic understanding of the subject, which I can tell you from my vantage point is not remotely "religionist". There is, of course, a huge difference between the cult of Yahweh in ancient Canaan, and the evolving deity of Judaism. Yahweh (Canaanite deity), does not, despite your claims, completely separate the two deities. It links them in fact. I'm not sure Dab's way of dealing with the issue was the best, but his conceptualization of the differences between the two (one the focus of an ancient cult and the other an evolving deity of a seperate literate society) seem spot on. I truly believe that it would be better for the Wiki if you stepped back from this and related entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Dab is not a "religionist." PiCo (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If not, then why the move of the page to "God of Israel" ? This was an attempt to force his religious POV that ancient Israel was distinct from everybody else in the region in regard to the deity worshipd. The only source for this POV is the interpretation of the Tanakh as a history book that accurately describes political circumstances and accurately describes what the various peoples of the ANE believed in. But there is no reliable source that provides any substantial scientific evidence for a division between Canaanites and Israelites whatsoever. Archaeology and historical research do provide the overall picture of a more or less homogeneous and continuous culture for Canaan and environs including the time frame that Judaism assigns the whole Israel thing to. ≡ CUSH ≡ 19:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Dab is a gentleman. If you want to see a real religionist at work, have a look at this.PiCo (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am actually doing my best fighting the religionists on this page, who are trying to keep this page in as useless a state as possible, or just full of sectarian nonsense. A little help please? Can we agree already that this page is a train wreck and opt for WP:TNT? It's going to turn out that way in any case, it's just a matter of wasting a few more months with futile disputes. --dab (𒁳) 22:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No I don't agree; and things aren't helped by your constantly destabilising the page by trying to change its focus. Jheald (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

destabilising? This is a joke. Here is what is going on: I must assume Jheald is an adherent of the "Sacred Name Movement" and is trying to pretend that the name "Yahweh" is somehow in common use when talking about the God of the Hebrew Bible. This is ridiculous. This is a minor fringe movement within US Christianity. Writing the article about the Judeo-Christian God from their perspective is ridiculous.

What I do not get is why the supposed secular watchdogs around here (such as Cush) play along with this game. I am tired of talking to a wall. Jheald is here to push his sad religious pov. Cush is here to show how anti-religious he is. There is no way any kind of sense is going to arise from such a situation. The upshot remains that this article is broken and needs to be split up, or rewritten. There are plenty of people who would be able to do this if Jheald could just be stopped from turning this into a childish pissing contest for five minutes. --dab (𒁳) 22:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How is "Yahweh" only used by a "minor fringe movement within US Christianity" when it is the common name used all over Europe (in varying spelling in different languages of course)? Any academic work I have come across and that refers in some way to the biblical deity uses the name Yahweh. And even in US media it is commonly used to refer to the biblical deity. ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)We have, in my view, a consensus for what the focus for this page should be, reflected in the lead as of this edit. It is a tight, concise, effectively written lead that effectively summarises the main points.
There is clear consensus that this article should present both the God of the Bible, who the Bible calls YHWH, the modern conventional scholarly rendering of which is Yahweh, and also what scholars have theorised about possible the historical background.
That's a focus that is intellectually coherent, is what the articles that link here expects, and is what consensus - as twice explicitly tested - supports.
It's an entirely workable scope. It's one the article actually doesn't do a bad job of presenting. Yes, IMO the material on how God is presented in the Bible could be substantially improved; material on the literary analysis of that presentation should be restored; and there are at least a couple of different lines being presented in the historical section. So there is work to be done.
But that work can't even start when you are repeatedly setting out to destabilise the article's scope. So, please stop trying to rescope the article -- or at the very least show that you have established consensus here first; and then, maybe, it can move forwards. Jheald (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. dab's edits are probably best described as vandalism. The assertion that only the sacred name movement uses the name Yahweh is absurd, as the name is all over the scholarly literature, both in secular scholarship of the ANE and also widespread among the faith based scholarship: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant. I have restored a lead that summarizes the article and does not take tangents or delve into issues that should be discussed on the talk page.ANE.Scholar (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Jheald comment about the lede and the topic of the article I think is fairly right-on. Concerning the content of the lede, I would just note that the 3rd paragraph (which begins with "The Bible describes Yahweh as") should be rewritten without the bible quotes. Simply, this paragraph consists of several sentences that state an aspect/description/something about YHWH, and then immediately follows it up with a quote which reiterates what was just said. This is pointless, and harkens back to preacher sermon techniques, not encyclopædic conventions.
I might clarify Jheald's statement of the article's purpose as found in the lede (and earlier debate, I might add),
The article is about:
  • The primary (if not sole) god of the ancient people of Judah and Israel
  • The scholarly/critical interpretation of that god, as in what they view as his origins, similarities, and other aspects of him in relation to the social/historical/political/religious background from which he "emerged" (however you want to interpret that quoted word) and possible relation or derivation from other deities from which early Judah/Israel had contact
  • The article may touch on how the view of that god is interpreted post-Jesus (regardless of whether J-man existed or not), such as how rabbinic and other modern descendants of YHWH-ism (for lack of better term) interpret/regard this deity, or Christianity's and Islaam's adherents view of that god in relation to their religion.
The first 2 points should have equal opportunity to share equally within the article. Due to the current lack of archæological material (although, there is a limited some), much of point one will be limited to books found within the bible. Point two must also rely on limited archæological material, however, it has more leeway in guessing the situation by including material from neighboring nations (with several grains of salt), as well as its ability to attempt to "read between the lines" of the biblical text, rather than a more "on the face" interpretation that point one would rely on.
As Jheald mentioned, the article already closely complies to this outline, but we need to do some work to clean up the article (particularly the excessive and unnecessary use of quotations — this is an encyclopædic article, not a sermon/mass).
If one is wondering why I bother to expand on Jheald's comment to such a degree (although I could have gone much further), it is in hope that the points are made more clear to some people here, as well as a hope that if there is some misunderstanding, the above elaboration may help bring them forward for clarifying/discussing.
I might remind some here that WP isn't concerned about the truth, just what is verifiable, published, etc (for example, "Lord of the Rings" characters are entirely fictitious, but that doesn't bar them, their descriptions, etc, from inclusion in Wikipedia, even if the only source material is JRR Tolkien's books). — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Made some changes to the lede. It has the same content (a few words changed, but not the idea of the original words). I appended what was the 3rd paragraph as a sentence in para 1. The quotes are still there, but are now part of the citation. There was no point in having the quotes there, is just repeated what was said and there was already a citation for each assertion made in the paragraph. It now reads better, better flow. — al-Shimoni (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The usual understanding is that YHWH became the sole god of Judaism in a small circle around Ezekiel and 2nd Isaiah during the exile; prior to that YHWH had been the national god of Judah and previously Israel, but not the sole deity (Jeremiah makes that clear). After the return to Jerusalem, however and whenever that happened (the opening chapters of Ezra can't be taken literally, but clearly something happened), this group, with Persian support, gained control of Jerusalem and the Temple (they were made up of the priests and scribes in exile) and imposed their reforms on the Judahites who had stayed behind. There's a good deal of archaeological evidence to support this (the pillar figurines, for example - these are little fertility-goddess statuettes, very common in Judah right up to the 586 period, totally absent afterwards) and a great deal of discussion by bible-scholars (notably Albertz and Grabbe, but many others). It was also during this post-return period that the name of God seems to have been replaced with Adonai. There are many good sources listed at the end of our article, but they're not being used well. PiCo (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles on literary works, characters, or biographies contain quotes, including quotes in the lede, such as the articles on William Blake, Karl Marx, and many of the Shakespearean Sonnets. The second paragraph summarizes the Hebrew Bible’s description of the character. The subsequent paragraphs in the lede summarize other issues treated in the article, such as the history of Yahweh worship and the views of various traditions and scholars. Together, these paragraphs accomplish the purpose a lede section.Corinne68 (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Many articles on history and literature topics are well served by the inclusion of ample quotations. Hammurabi's code, Akkadian Empire, Hannibal, and United States Declaration of Independence are a few examples among many. ANE.Scholar (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this where discussion is taking place about the proposed split? If so, it is not clear to the curious passerby. I recommend you start a discussion that focuses on the split that is proposed. My question about the split is this... Aren't YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, and others all the same god? A person's choice of that god's commandments (or what have you, not a scholar) makes no difference on the god. God does not change because of your belief structure surrounding God. Therefore, the different religions, who accept different parts of different books as gospel, are arguing about the same god. They're arguing that their understanding of God is the correct one, but that does not change the god in question. If the subject of the article is God, then we have one subject, that means one article. My understanding, correct me if you will. 134.29.231.11 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

History of the Bible - new subsection

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I've added a new subsection at the top of the section on Yahweh in the bible. I've done this because I think it's important to explain to the reader the context in which Yahweh appears - the bible itself has a history and a point of view, and one cannot understand "Yahweh" (the quote marks mean I'm talking about the Bible's depiction of the god Yahweh) without understanding the historical context. At the moment there are no sources cited, but that's easily done later. I just want some feedback/discussion on the idea of having this section. PiCo (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, 666 characters. How ominous... ≡ CUSH ≡ 19:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I think something like this is appropriate, but in my view probably it should come after the presentation of what the Bible says. Otherwise it might seem to some a bit like getting in some editorial contextualising from a particular direction first, before letting people read a straight summary of what it says in the book. Putting a discussion of scholarly views on the Bible after the biblical summary, though, I think should be entirely unobjectionable -- after all, it's where we've previously had our Documentary Hypothesis section.
The kind of material in your latest paragraph in the discussion immediately above (01:07, 8 Feb), about the time of Ezra, might also be a good fit here; as might quickly reviewing ideas of syncretism from different literary sources that were so much part of the inspiration of the DH (the claimed different characterisation of God in the parallel narratives where the name Elohim is used &c).
In terms of tone, I'm not sure I'd be quite so definite "this happened, then that happened, then the other happened" -- after all, this is just a reconstruction by scholars, so some humility might be appropriate. To put this in perspective, a rabbi would still be excommunicated from the most mainstream modern orthodox group of synagogues in the UK for saying this (cf Louis Jacobs) -- never mind the groups that are even more traditionalist; so in the interests of long-term stability of the article, it's probably better to say "X has said this, which has found widespread acceptance" rather than bluntly "this happened". Somebody receptive to the scholarly view won't even notice the difference; but that way we avoid somebody hostile to it taking offence and us then thrashing wording out for a week. (Along the same lines, I preferred "one theory is..." for why Yahweh ceased to be said, rather than presenting the idea as fact, even if you can indeed show it does have overwhelming scholarly acceptance as per the previous discussion section; ... also, I have to admit, it was only when it was flagged up with the extra words that I actually noticed that this interesting and plausible theory was in the article!)
So: yes to the discussion; some patches maybe to the tone; and maybe place it after rather than before the bible section. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
On pre or post and editorial contextualization, I'm inclined to disagree and say that it seems it would still be better to have it before since, in either position, some kind of bias (even bias out of ignorance — lack of knowledge, not the derogatory sense) will be in play in the reader's mind. Providing some kind of context at-first would, IMHO, would be the better option, the lesser of two evils, as long as it is NPOV.
I agree with your paragraph that begins with speaking about tone, and your "so in the interests of long-term stability of the article". :) This would be more in tune with it being NPOV, although PiCo, I think, often does a fairly good job on being NPOV. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This intro section was tagged so I've moved it (below) here for work and put in

Main article: Hebrew Bible

as place keeper. Seeing now the discussion above perhaps that wasn't the best route, since Most modern scholars consider that + ref inserting in a couple of places might be easy enough. Feel free to revert, anyone.In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

___________________ History of the Bible {{Multiple issues|section=y | citations missing = April 2011 | disputed = April 2011 | original research = April 2011 }} The books of the Hebrew Bible were composed over many centuries by many authors. They were not written in the same order in which we now have them: the Book of Genesis, for example, although the first book in the Bible, was one of the last to be written, no earlier than the 6th century BCE. The earliest books are some of the prophets: Amos, part of Isaiah, and Hosea all contain material from the 8th century BCE, and are the earliest works. While these are the oldest books, they are not, however, the oldest elements: the Song of the Sea in the Book of Exodus is probably older than any of the prophetic books, despite having been inserted into one of the more recent books. None of the books as we have them today are original, all have been edited, often heavily, and reflect more than one single theological viewpoint; the picture they present of ancient Jewish religion is therefore partial, incomplete, and usually reflects the values and practices of a time long after the events described. ___________________________

Please folks try to be specific when describing ANE languages and texts

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi folks. Have just corrected the lede first sentence by inserting "Yahu" in front of "in Semitic religion" (which actually isn't correct since what language/text is meant?? But is more correct than the way the first sentence was). Ref givenm Propp, William Henry. Exodus 19-40: a new translation with introduction and commentary Anchor Bible Commentary, Exodus Vol2, Yale University Press 9780385246934 2006 "In particular, the name "Yahweh" is so far not known from Canaanite sources (see below)." Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeroboam NOT Solomon's son

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article erroneously states that Jeroboam was a son of Solomon. Rehoboam was the son of Solomon who followed his father on the throne of the united monarchy. Jeroboam - who was from the tribe of Ephraim, not Judah (like Solomon and Rehoboaom) - was a leader of the rebellion that split the united monarchy into the Kingdom of Judah in the south and the Kingdom of Israel in the north. Rehoboam, Solomon's son, continued as King of Judah while Jeroboam, who was no relation to Solomon, became the first King of Israel. 71.198.146.98 (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot just replace the name, however. And what does the referred source (Karel van der Toorn) actually say? ♆ CUSH ♆ 05:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

07:52, 25 June 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (82,636 bytes) (Discussion has died with no outcome in favor of a split.) (undo) So what's next, merge anything in Yahweh (Canaanite deity) relevant and sourced back into Yahweh? Seems odd to have a fork article "Yahweh (Canaanite deity)" on something that effectively doesn't exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yahweh (Canaanite deity) must be integrated back into Yahweh. However, I predict lengthy edit wars with religious editors who will not allow Yahweh to be identified as another deity as the biblical deity. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I agree on integration, but I'm not sure whether the sourced material in the fork article, merged or not, identifies Israel's Yahweh as a Canaanite deity. I had assumed it was a proven fact that there were Canaanite equivalents to Yahweh, not least since it is something that one would assume even from reading the Hebrew Bible records of syncretic practices during Kings/Chronicles period, and yet from a concrete linguistic point of view the fork article shows nothing except Sm bny yw 'ilt in KTU 1.1:IV:14-15. I thought evidence, and scholarly consensus, for Canaanite parallels to Yahweh would have been stronger than this. But on the face of it, if the fork article is complete, it looks like 1920s scholarship overegged somewhat. Not that that affects the edit issue re the fork.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

More recent edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've made some more edits - this time constructive.

  • I've tidied up the "Name" section, putting the subsections in a more logical order (I think) and shortening it. When shortening, I was trying to bear in mind our likely reader - a general reader, after a very basic introduction to the topic, based on scholarly sources but not using scholarly jargon.
  • Hebrew bible section. I've put this back in, but as a stub. Corinne, I really do think you need to accept that the majority of us don't like the quotations - the reasons have been explained. But, please, I have no idea of cutting the bible out. It's essential that it go in, but it needs a different approach.
  • History and archaeology: This section is far too long and meandering and detailed, and needs to be cut back - rather the opposite to the problem with the Hebrew Bible section. I've tried to start this process.

Anyway, I'd appreciate constructive comment on what I've started. PiCo (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

I've made 2 extensive edits, and will explain them here.

Edit 1 involved cutting the lead down to a stub. This stub is, I hope, the very most basic level all editors can agree on. What I'd like to do is leave it this way for now, redo the article, and then do the stub.

Edit 2 was to delete a very large collection of bible quotes and bible episodes. No article should have such things in it - an encyclopedia is not an anthology. PiCo (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I saw your edits as WP:Vandalism, I reverted them. Do not make edits, then try to explain them. First, get consensus, then edit.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the way this article works, consensus is never going to happen. PiCo (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to include the lengthy but pointless bible quotes. They do nothing to illuminate the character of the biblical deity, and no-one will read the messy unencyclopedic paragraphs anyways. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
So we can take it as of this point that consensus has accepted the deletion of the bible quotes section. PiCo (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, same here on quotes (no-opinion on the rest). Vandalism is a false claim. Objectors are welcome to specify, and explain, their objections here (as long as a discussion was opened already). ~ AdvertAdam talk 11:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it could be vandalism - massive deletion is something that vandals do. But the intention was to put a stick of dynamite under the article. PiCo (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
You always do :p ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Concur with removal of all the quotes. It has been advocated for a long time, but then we get those lone quote-enthusiasts who almost immediately reverts it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Recent edits ignore editorial consensus that has repeatedly emerged over the last couple of years as well as expectations of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who link to this page (see discussion from Michael Courtney (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)). Relevant to WP:NPOV, the recent edits elevate a minor point of view and attempt to eliminate major, well documented points of view. At least seven editors in addition to myself have posted agreement on this discussion page that the article should include a prominent treatment of the character Yahweh in the biblical texts, with less notable points of view treated later in the article. The following references to previous contributions to the discussion are a reminder of the support for retaining this structure: Corinne68 (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

… Yahweh is the general scholarly term for the deity described as YHWH in the Hebrew bible. That's what this article is about …) PiCo (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that this article should also describe the pre-Hebrew Yahweh, as well as the characteristics of Yahweh as he appears in the J source of the Torah. Leadwind (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

… keep the article as it is, with what is definitely said in the scriptures before scholarly views on the underlying religion-historical background. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

[I] did previously argue for the other way round (see comparison with King Arthur above), but I've come round to the view that the development pretty much in the order we have it at the moment does I think work, and so I think is something worth keeping with. Jheald (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Yahweh is a biblical term, the extrabiblical text should be almost marginal, rather than so prominent in the article. It actually is a distraction when reading the article... ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AFA Prof01 that Yahweh is most notable because of the Bible. … As in other articles on literary characters (Hamlet was discussed earlier in this post), it is appropriate that the prominent role and actions of Yahweh in literary texts are summarized early in the article. The links to the Yahweh page that were recently summarized make a clear case that this is the kind of content Wikipedia editors expect when they link to this page. …Corinne68 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When I come to an article on Yahweh, I expect to read about the god in the Old Testament/ Tanakh. Can we get over the peculiar fixation with the spelling/pronounciation/… -Civilizededucationtalk 14:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

… honestly the term "Yahweh" mostly gets used as a Biblical term for God. This page should straddle both meanings. … there are enough believers out there that there's just no way that WP can treat Yahweh as just one more Canaanite deity. Leadwind (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Many articles on personal names, which include the name 'Yahweh', link directly here when discussing the name … Since Yahweh is the common academic spelling, it is most often used on Wikipedia. This means that any traffic looking for the meaning of the name "Yahweh" or looking up information on the God commonly known as Yahweh is sent here … --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow.
1. These edits show no support for the mile-long quotes that were removed. So what is your point?
2. Never clutter up a talk page like that again. This is not a sandbox. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminding us of past discussions is important because is establishes the emphasis of the article on the Yahweh of the Bible rather than pre-Biblical religions of Canaan as known from archaeology. NPOV requires the article include a significant portion of the historical faith based views, and sticking closer to the text is far preferable and more encyclopedic to the quagmire of “Jewish views of Yahweh”, “Catholic views …”, etc. Organizing according to Torah, Prophets, and Writings makes sense, much as one might discuss a character from any long-running series of books in terms of groups of those books. Wouldn’t the Rolling Stones article be much better with some audio snippets of their best songs?
With so many articles on ancient near east subjects so poorly referenced, I’d hate to see the biblical material removed, especially since so much includes secondary sources supporting the use of primary material. The biblical material can probably be improved, but removal took the article down from 159 citations to 77; such wholesale deletion of such well-sourced material is contrary to Wikipedia policies and preferred practices. Any time one is dealing with biblical material, consensus will be hard to reach due to the historical disagreements and tension between secular and religious preferences. An approach closer to what the text says than a particular school of thought as to what it means is a well-established path of least resistance. Few editors will be completely satisfied, but the reader is given some satisfaction and information regarding the article topic from the most notable sources. Many valuable articles on the ancient near east make good use of quotations; the articles on Sargon, the Akkadian Empire, and Hannibal are some examples.ANE.Scholar (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Corinne68 and ANE.Scholar, I don't think anyone here is actually disagreeing with your core concern: yes, the article should be about the Yahweh that we learn about in the Old Testament. I think the scholarly stuff about Shasu is overdone - there should be some, but not this much. The problem is, the present treatment of Yahweh in the OT isn't informative - how can it be when it's mainly a list of quotes taken pretty much at random? Vast amounts are missing - it starts with Yahweh speaking to Abraham, but where's Creation, the Garden, the Flood and all the things that came before Abraham?
What I'd like to replace this with is a set of summaries of the major parts of the OT. Those parts are: (1) the three histories (Torah, Joshua/Kings, Chronicles/Ezra-Nehemia); (2) prophets (in the Christian sense, meaning Isaiah to Malachi); (3) writings. That can be done taking up much less room than the current version, and more informative and complete.
Then I'd like to have a section on major themes. These include Yahweh's covenantal relationship with Israel (which includes such things as election and promises); Yahweh's nature (one god, creator, etc); and assorted theological ideas such as theodicy, salvation, etc.
This approach would be far more enlightening to the reader than a collection of incomplete summaries bible passages.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should the article be about the Yahweh that we learn about in the Old Testament, or rather Tanakh? So far the article was about the deity named Yahweh that we learn about in the Tanakh, but that also includes sources outside the Tanakh that refer to the same deity (also by other names). The whole point of this article is to demonstrate that Yahweh is preciesly not only a literary character in jewish scripture but a deity worshiped throughout the Levant and even further regions of the ANE. This is NOT the God in Judaism article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    As PiCo said, it is the excessive use of quoted verses, seemingly at random which is really at issue here. Additionally, why one particular quote over another which makes the same point? We can't quote them all, either. Why would a reader come to this article and read it if it is just a bunch of quotes when they could essentially get the same thing from reading TaNaK itself. Additionally, the direct quoting of a set of verses to make a point in the way that this article does is problematic for many reasons (too many to list in Discussion page). It is far better to have a consistent article text that doesn't jump back and forth from article text to a scripture text and then back. It is also better to just explain, within the article's text itself, what is being describe at various regions of TaNaK. When there is a significant difference of opinion on what that region is describing, the article should say so (just like any article on Wikipedia or even something like Encyclopedia Britannica). A common everyday reader when confronted by a quote of biblical text has a high chance of reading it and saying "WTF does that mean?" The reader has no context to fit the verse into, may be quite unfamiliar with biblical speak (people, journals, general novels in the real world don't speak in the same manner as biblical text), and probably won't have any idea what point was supposed to be made by quoting the text to begin with (what was s/he supposed to be paying attention to in the quote?). This and many other problems associated with quoting biblical text just make a mess out of this article and probably leaves the reader a little bit more confused than when s/he began reading it.
    Simple answer to these problems is, don't excessively quote biblical text (but do give references linking to where one may look at the text if desired), explain in simple terminology what various regions of the bible is talking about, and when there is a significant difference of opinion on what is meant, explain it. All throughout, references/citations should be given (NOT random bible quotes taken out of context).
— al-Shimoni (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to illustrate why we are meant to be wary about using primary sources and why we ask for reliable sources that discuss those primary sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why has the terrible quotation section been restored?? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my 2c: I think what PiCo has proposed is exciting, and very much the Right Way forward. What he has laid out is ambitious, and I imagine will have to be supported with quite a lot of summary-style hand-offs to appropriate more detailed presentations. But a survey of the kind he is proposing, though a challenge to put together, is absolutely what we should be aiming for.
The quotes section has long been something sub-optimal about the article, which I think we have all recognised; given the limited number of words available, with so much to survey, the quotes are a very inefficient way to go forward. They aren't systematic or comprehensive enough about either the narrative of what the God of Israel is presented as doing in the Bible, or the themes about what attributes and character he is presented with.
But on the other hand, one of the most significant re-directs to this article is "God of Israel"; this is where we locate that Biblical survey; and it is something that a great many of the readers who come here will be looking for. (Quite apart from being valuable to present alongside a more "behind the text" view, for grounding, comparison and contrast).
So while I very much like the sound of PiCo's proposed survey, I am in two minds about removing the existing content before PiCo's new text is ready to roll out. On the one hand, if removing the old material is going to encourage PiCo to produce more quickly the draft he thinks he can pull together, then so be it. But on the other hand, unless he is confident that he can pull together such a draft quickly, there is a case that old treatment (however imperfect) should perhaps stay, until we actually do have something better to roll out to replace it. Jheald (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does God of Israel redirect here now? Wasn't there a separate article? YHWH/Yahweh is a much broader scope than just God of Israel. Besides that it is in no way certain what the Gods of Israel were. The Bible is not a history book. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes YHWH/Yahweh is indeed "a much broader scope than just God of Israel" -- but our article reflects that; it has that "much broader scope". On the other hand, "Bible-described God of Israel" is an important part of that scope; which is why the redirect comes to here, as the place where that material is treated, and treated in context. Jheald (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology and El

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • The first paragraph for the Etymology section discusses "el" with "el" being the Canaanite deity El. However, in the construction like those given, it is not always El (the Canaanite deity) that is being mentioned but rather "el" meaning "god" (lower G) as in "el-elyon" meaning "god most high" (not necessarily a capital G) which could be applied to several deities (not just El). This isn't mentioned in that paragraph. Is this the contention of Frank Moore Cross (whose theory is being discussed), and is it that he does not consider the other meaning for "el". — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hebrew אל "el" can also mean "towards" (the preposition). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Arabic

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language Arabic is central semitic and not south semitic, please change that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Léandros (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Arabic's grouping varies depending on the researchers. Some place it South Semitic, some as South Central Semitic (this is the group it is usually placed within), and more recently SIL has proposed creating a new group called "Central Semitic" (the one you suggested above) in which Arabic would be placed. — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor capitalization error?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the second paragraph of the "Yahweh as national god of Israel" section, the word "state" in the phrase "State god" is capitalized. Is this correct/intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.243.233 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It might have been intentional but it's wrong, and I've fixed it. Thanks for reporting it. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All the Usages of Yahweh in the Tanakh

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Interesting that Yahweh said Solomon’s heart was drawn away from following him, and Ecclesiastics and Song of Solomon, which Solomon was said to have written, do not contain the name Yahweh. Ester is the only other Scroll with no usages of the name Yahweh. This was the reason that the Greek LXX Translation done about 130 BC was not accepted by most in Israel, because it translated the name Yahweh κυρίος, the same as many other words that have a similar meaning to κυρίος,, none of which uniquely mean Yahweh, and all but the name Yahweh are named as titles upon both good and evil rulers and believers and unbelievers. All are called אלהים Elohim or Gods, and אדנ Adon or Lord, and we are warned not to follow People called Gods or Lords who do not follow Yahweh, they are counted as נכרי, which is often translated as “strange” in your old English Scriptures, but it means “foreign,” like as Esau is a foreign nation outside our nation of Jacob who follows Yahweh.

והמלך שׁלמה אהב נשׁים נכריות רבות ואת־בת־פרעה מואביות עמניות אדמית צדנית חתית׃ מן־הגוים אשׁר אמר־יהוה אל־בני ישׂראל לא־תבאו בהם והם לא־יבאו בכם אכן יטו את־לבבכם אחרי אלהיהם בהם דבק שׁלמה לאהבה׃ ויהי־לו נשׁים שׂרות שׁבע מאות ופלגשׁים שׁלשׁ מאות ויטו נשׁיו את־לבו׃ ויהי לעת זקנת שׁלמה נשׁיו הטו את־לבבו אחרי אלהים אחרים ולא־היה לבבו שׁלם עם־יהוה אלהיו כלבב דויד אביו׃ וילך שׁלמה אחרי עשׁתרת אלהי צדנים ואחרי מלכם שׁקץ עמנים׃ ויעשׂ שׁלמה הרע בעיני יהוה ולא מלא אחרי יהוה כדוד אביו׃

1 Kings 11:1-6

I made a Concordance with the Hebrew Verses where the name Yahweh is used, and I will be adding the Greek from the LXX for comparison as I translate the Hebrew. If anyone is interested in helping just go to my Talk Page and let me know, and I will share my Google Docs with you for editing.

יהוה Tanakh Usage Index

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mnF_1A3XVfQAw5x_eA6Lisx_AbXfRljSCcswHYEjlUo/edit?hl=en_US

שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃ ואהבת את יהוה אלהיך בכל־לבבך ובכל־נפשׁך ובכל־מאדך׃

Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh first! And Love associate Yahweh within all your heart, and within all your soul, and within all your strength!

נאם יהוה לאדני שׁב לימיני עד־אשׁית איביך הדם לרגליך׃ Said Yahweh unto my Lord, “sit here out my right hand till I set your enemies to stool the feet yours!”

--User:JosephLoegering User_talk:JosephLoegering

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Please edit the article as you see fit, and others will then review what you have done. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest the Christianity Inset Panel be removed.

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The discussion of Yahweh is not found within the Christianity page and hence "Yahweh" is not part of any Christian discussion there that I can see. The image of Jesus on this page appears to attempt to portray Jesus as Yahweh, which frankly is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE to Jews and even some Christians. The suggestion is made to remove the Christianity inset panel as not germane to this topic, or at the very least a removal of the ("idolatrous") image for the sake of sensitivity of the Judaic community. Beau.Beauchamp (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)— Beau.Beauchamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The image is the header image of the Christianity series, so it stays. According to Christianity Jesus *is* Yahweh (cf. Trinity), so the context is justified as well. And what you find idolatrous is no criterion for exclusion of material on Wikipedia. And your claim that Jews find Christianity offensive (including its claim that Jesus is Yahweh's incarnation) would need reliable sources that demonstrate it to be the majority view among Jews. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Complications with the Name

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While other renderings of YHWH, such as Jehovah and Yahwah have been used, a recent one, Yahuwah, has gained some popularity among the lay population. Support for pronouncing YHWH in this way has not come from any noted primary or secondary scholars, but can be explained using the Strong's Concordance number H3068 and H3063. The name “Judah” (Strong’s H3063) has identical spelling to YHWH (יהוה) but with an added dalet (d): יהודה. Strong's pronunciation of Judah is "yeh-hoo-daw". Removing the dalet makes it "yeh-hoo-aw", a three-syllable word with an alternate pronuncation of the last syllabe, which is problematic for the Yahweh pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjonathan2000 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Source for this, other than Strong's? Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this discussion would be more appropriate at Tetragrammaton. I see you are suggesting the use of the website http://www.originalscriptures.com/. It appears to be self-published to me. What are others' opinions on the reliability of this source and the inclusion of this theory? Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

nonsensical statement

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The Bible describes Yahweh as the LORD".

This is nonsensical. The Bible uses the name "Yahweh", which people transliterate as "the LORD". So what we're really saying here is that "The Bible describes Yahweh as Yahweh". Delete, or suggestions for improvement? — kwami (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Opinion about "Jehovah" in the New Testament

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Jehovah's Witness New World Translation consistently uses "Jehovah", and even incorrectly inserts it in to the New Testament in place of the Greek "kurios" in many places.

Although this statement is sourced, it assumes that the opinion about the use of Jehovah in the New Testament (actually called Christian Greek Scriptures by Jehovah's Witnesses) is correct. Some way of indicating that the incorrectness of the usage is an opinion needs to be worked into the article. 69.42.13.45 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to clarify what you mean. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yahweh the Volcano God

Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Many experts, atheists, ex-theists and Biblical scholars are now accepting the origins of the 'one true god', that being volcanic activity. Given that, why is there absolutely no mention of this on this Wiki page?

Here is a small selection of Biblical verses that hint very strongly at Yahweh being a volcano god...

List of bible quotes

Isaiah 30:27 See, the Name of the LORD comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire.

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 4:11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness.

Deuteronomy 5:4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.

Deuteronomy 33:2 He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.

Isaiah 10:17 The Light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers.

Isaiah 33:14 The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: "Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

Isaiah 66:15 See, the LORD is coming with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done--burn with no one to quench it.

Ezekiel 22:31 So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Daniel 7:10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.

Lamentations 4:11 The LORD has given full vent to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger. He kindled a fire in Zion that consumed her foundations.

Ezekiel 7:8 I am about to pour out my wrath on you and spend my anger against you; I will judge you according to your conduct and repay you for all your detestable practices.

Exodus 3:12 And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."

Isaiah 29:6 the LORD Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.

Revelation 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Exodus 19:16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.

2 Samuel 22:10 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.

Psalm 104:3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.

Jeremiah 4:13 Look! He advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind, his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us! We are ruined!

1 Timothy 6:16 The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords: who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power eternal. Amen"

Deuteronomy 4:32-43 "For ask now of the days that are past ... whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is? ... Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials , by signs, and by wonders ... according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?"

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. 12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. 13 there shall not a hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live. 16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, Rev. 4.5 and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. 18 And mount Si'nai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire:

Deut. 4.11, 12 and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

PSA 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.

ISA 30:27 Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:

Isaiah: 5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly.

Revelations: 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Exodus: 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”

Revelation 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire.

Matthew 13:42 Jesus Christ said the lost will finally be cast “into a furnace of fire.”

Matthew 3:12 John the Baptist said the lost will end up in “unquenchable fire.”

Numbers 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

1 Kings 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

Genesis 15:17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

Leviticus 9:24And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

1 Chronicles 21:26And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.

2 Chronicles 7:1Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house.

Hebrews 12:29 for our "God is a consuming fire."

Exodus 15:7 In the greatness of your majesty you threw down those who opposed you. You unleashed your burning anger; it consumed them like stubble.

Exodus 24:17 To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain.

2 Samuel 22:9 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it.

Psalm 97:3 Fire goes before him and consumes his foes on every side.

Jeremiah 25:37 The peaceful meadows will be laid waste because of the fierce anger of the LORD.

Hebrews 10:27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

Hebrews 10:31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews 12:18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm;

2 Peter 3:7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Daniel 7:9 "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Numbers 16:34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, "The earth is going to swallow us too!"

Numbers 16.35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

Revelation 11:5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.

Leviticus 10:2 So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers 11:1 Now the people complained about their hardships in the hearing of the LORD, and when he heard them his anger was aroused. Then fire from the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp.

Numbers 26:10 The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them along with Korah, whose followers died when the fire devoured the 250 men. And they served as a warning sign.

Psalm 50:3 Our God comes and will not be silent; a fire devours before him, and around him a tempest rages.

Revelation 9:2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.

Exodus 20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance [unsigned at this moment]

(unsigned)

(edit conflict)Go ahead and add that. Just be prepared that I, and others, are curious to see the Reliable Source. -DePiep (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the OT not a reliable enough source for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieryDarts (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a few to get you started as I'm sure you will do your own research.....Charles T. Beke, Freud, Jordon Maxwell, Naves Topical Bible and...

NIV ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDY BIBLE, P. 123:

More qoutes

“According to Exodus 19 … Mount Sinai blazed with fire, was enveloped by a huge plume of cloud or smoke and shook violently as in an earthquake. Flashes of lightning and sounds like trumpet blasts also occurred. The description fits a a volcanic eruption. The emission of hot gases from fissures can produce trumpet-like sounds, and observers have reported seeing massive electrical displays emanatin...g from volcanic clouds. No volcanoes are known to have erupted during that period in the Sinai Peninsula, but Arabia has many volcanoes. One volcanic mountain in the western Arabian Peninsula, Hala al Bedr (Mount Bedr), is according to this theory a particularly promising candidate for ancient Mount Sinai.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieryDarts (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what Jordon Maxwell says.....

'We know that western religion is based on a far older Bible, the Bible of the Old Testament. Even further back, if you go back into the most ancient history of the world, especially in the Middle East, you will see that the volcano was one of the many things that was worshiped. The volcano was very important because it represented life and creation, and it had a sexual connotation...That's why today in most men's rooms, and hotels, and restaurants there will always be a triangle on the door. Triangle being the pyramid, or pyramid, coming from pyra, meaning fire, and mid, meaning middle. The fire of sexual generation is in the middle of the human body, that is why the volcano always represented sex, or the coming of life and the fire of life that brings new life to the world. So the volcano was a very important symbol to the ancient peoples of the world.

The volcano, like any other impressive or fearful aspect of nature, had become an object of worship for human beings from the time of the earliest stone age. Yet the original Yahweh, which was one of the gods of the Old Testament, seems to have begun as a volcano god. Mount Sinai, where Moses encountered him, was the seat of the Middianite god, and in the Middianite's earliest homeland he was identified with the local Moon god "Sin," which is where we get the name for the mountain in the Middle East, Sinai, or Sinai. It comes from the old Moon god Sin, after whom the mountain was named.

The Bible describes the appearance of Yahweh as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, as found in Exodus 13: 21-22.The word volcano comes from the Latin volcano god Vulcan, or Vulcanus, derived from the old Cretan deity Velchanos. Now here we have the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, and the Israelites in the desert with their representation of God. In Job 38 we find that thunder, in Hebrew, is considered the voice of God. Thunder, in Hebrew, is called voices, or the voice of God. In other references on Job 38 it talks about the storm. It says that the storm and clouds are in God's tent, which gather as the thunder, as the voice of Yahweh. The voice of Yahweh is roaring, they descend and God shoots his arrows of lightning. So we're talking about the God of the Old Testament with his thunder and his arrows of lightning. In Hebrew, this reference states that "God thunders wonderfully with his voice." So now we see that thunder and lightning are connected to the old volcano god, the god of the volcano.

It is said that at Mount Sinai Jehovah performed signs, the mountain smoked and trembled all over, and many now heard the proof that what Moses had made known in God's name was actually the word of God. The Israelites were at Mount Sinai, which is always pictured time and again, in many biblical texts, as a volcano. Jehovah led the sons of Israel to the mountain named Sinai, and there he gave them his law. The mountain at Sinai where the Israelites encountered Yahweh was actually a volcano.

On the cover of the Jewish Torah we often see pictured the benediction symbol. This is the rabbinical benediction symbol that's the blessing symbol with which the rabbis bless the congregation. The high priest of Israel often raised his hands in the priestly blessing for Yahweh, the volcano god, or Vulcan. So we see that this is a priestly blessing in the Hebrew. And today the rabbi always gives the priestly blessing for Yahweh at the synagogue. This also explains why Mr. Spock from "Star Trek" gives the exact same "priestly blessing," and that's why Mr. Spock is called a Vulcan. That was the whole idea of the Vulcan, coming from Vulcanus, or the old Cretan deity which was later to be found in the Old Testament under the name of Yahweh.'

Jordan Maxwell.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FieryDarts (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what a muslim scholar has said about it...

More quotes, II

'Together with the base of this mighty fissure, which runs precisely through this area, the Vale of Siddim, including Sodom and Gomorrah, plunged one day into the abyss. Their destruction came about through a great earthquake which was probably accompanied by explosions, lightning, issue of natural gas and general conflagration... The subsidence released volcanic forces that had been lying dormant deep down along the whole length of the fracture. In the upper valley of the Jordan near Bashan there are still towering craters of extinct volcanoes; great stretches of lava and deep layers of basalt have been deposited on the limestone surface.

These layers of lava and basalt are the most important evidence showing that a volcanic eruption and earthquake once took place there. In any event Lake Lut, otherwise known as the Dead Sea, lies directly above a seismically active region-in other words, an earthquake belt:

The base of the dead sea is located with a tectonic rooted downfall. This valley is located in a tension stretching between the Taberiye Lake in the north, and mid of Arabah Valley in the south.

The technical aspect of the disaster suffered by the people of Lut has been revealed in studies carried out by geologists. These have shown that the earthquake which wiped out the people of Lut came about as the result of a very long fault line. The Jordan River drops a total of 180 metres during its 190 km course. This, and the fact that the Dead Sea is 400 metres below sea level, combined to prove that that there once took place a major geological event in and around this area.

This interesting structure of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea comprise only part of the crack or fissure which passes through this region. It begins at the slopes of the Toros Mountains and runs southward past the southern shores of the Dead Sea, through the Arabian Desert, reaching the Gulf of Aqaba, from where it crosses the Red Sea before coming to an end in Africa. There is major volcanic activity in those areas through which the line passes. In fact, this occurs to such an extent that black basalt and lava can be found in the Mountains of Galilee in Israel, in part of the high plateaus in Jordan, the Gulf of Aqaba and other areas.

All these remains and geographical features show that there was a major geological event at the Dead Sea.

SEE REST OF ARTICLE HERE...

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_08.html

--FieryDarts (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - per Werner H. Schmidt The faith of the Old Testament: a history - 1983 Page 51 -"On the basis of the old accounts of a theophany in nature some have wished to see in Yahweh originally a volcano or storm deity. Appeal has also been made to the revelation of God to Abraham (Gen. 15: 17), 'a smoking fire pot and a ..." there might be need for a mention, but only as a historical curio verging into WP:Fringe. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about fringe. It's still quite common to state that Jehovah started out as a storm or mountain god. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I meant the "volcano" idea is fringe. The "storm" association opinion has more going for it in terms of WP:RS - I just added Alberto Ravinell Whitney Green. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say the current view of Yahweh was fringe considering how way out it is. Storm god? Volcanoes can generate electrical storms with lightening, thunder, hail and darkened skies. --FieryDarts (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

you would say this. It is your opinion. Anything in the article has to be supported by reliable secondary sources. I.e. not reliable sources that you interpret as supporting your opinion, but such that directly discuss the issue themselves. WillNess (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen 'mountain' and 'storm', but not volcano. It makes intuitive sense, but we need more than that. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say 'secondary sources' do you mean secondary to the Bible? The Bible contains all the proof needed, although there is a lot of other evidence that backs up the Bible. For example, the ten plagues of Egypt seem to have been caused by the Santorini (Thera) eruption north of Egypt. The Bible exlains the catastrophies suffered by the Egyptians and they can all be explained by the after effects of the eruption. That eruption also seems to coincide with the numerous verses in the Bible that say, 'The god who brought you out of Egypt'. The eruption caused disaster but it also enabled the Hebrews to leave...with all the Egyptians' gold! This theory is so complex that there is simply not one single source that summerised every detail. However, a lot of topics have been covered at 'oh my volcano' in Google. If you have specific questions then please ask and I will then see what evidence I can provide. --FieryDarts (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say 'secondary sources' do you mean secondary to the Bible?

Yes. The Bible is a Primary source (WP:PRIMARY)

The Bible contains all the proof needed,

. No. You're engaging in original research WP:NOR). Remember that: "Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing." You need Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE) attesting to this. Please read the following policies before continuing:
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already posted that the NIV Achaeological Study Bible claims Mount Sinai was a volcano. Is that classed as a 'reliable source'?

On page 96 of The Urantia Book Yahweh is said to be just one of hundreds of nature gods but with a volcano as its deity.

On page 39 of Sigmund Freud's 'Moses and Monotheism, the god of the Jews is said to be a volcano god.

Mount Badr, a volcano in Saudi Arabia, has been suggested as the site for Mount Sinai by Alois Musil, Jean Koenig and Colin Humphreys.

Charles Beke suggested in 'Mount Sinai a Volcano' 1973 that Mount Sinai was a volcano.

Bill Lauritzen in 'The Invention of God' writes about the role of volcanoes in mythology and belief in god.

--FieryDarts (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources (break added)

In 'Mythology's Last Gods', William R.Harwood describes Yahweh as a volcano god.

In 'The Christ Conspiracy', Acharya S describes Yahweh as a volcano god.

In 'The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker, Yahweh is said to have been a volcano god.

In 'The Masks of God Volume 3 Occidental Mythology' by Joseph Campbell, Yahweh is described as an Arabian volcano god.

In 'The Jews: Story of a People' by Howard Fast, Yahweh was described as a volcano.

In 'Mass Psychology', Sigmund Freud says Yahwey was a volcano god.

In 'Atheism in Christianity' by Ernst Block, Yahweh was said to be a volcano god.

In 'The Oxford Companion to the Bible' by M.Coogan and B.Metzger, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'Psychoanalysis and Religios Experience' by W. W. Meissner, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'All About Adam and Eve' by Robert Gillooly, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'The Genesis of Misconception' by Paul John, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'The Autobiography of God' by William Harwood, Yahweh is described as an extinct volcano god.

In 'Adieu to God' by Michael J. Power, Yahweh is described as originating from a volcano god.

In 'Freud and Moses' by Emanuel Rice, Yahweh is described as a volcano god.

In 'Moses the Egyptian' by Jan Assman, Yahweh is described as a volcanic demon.

In 'Eschatology in the old Testament' by Donald E. Gowan, Yahweh is described as a volcano or storm god.

In 'Water for a thirsty land' by Hermann Gunkel and K. C. Hanson, Yahweh is described as a volcanic deity.

In 'The Divine Invasion' by Philip Dick, Yahweh is described as probably a volcanic deity.

There are many more if that is not enough. --FieryDarts (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Can someone now please confirm why there is no mention of this possibility in the 'Origins of Yahweh' section? Can someone please correct this ommision, maybe under a new heading 'Volcanic Origins of Yahweh'? If not why not? --FieryDarts (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Philip Dick! Lordy Lordy! PiCo (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fiery Darts, (please excuse me redlinking some of those names, wanted to see if they had bios). The answer to your question, Fiery Darts, is because most if not all of those refs come into 2 sorts. (1) WP:FRINGE - like Dorothy Murdock, (2) outdated, such as Hermann Gunkel (3) sources that are actually talking about Freud. Such as Adieu to God: Why Psychology Leads to Atheism by Michael J. Power, etc. I assume the "Coogan/Metzger" ref you've given is this which is actually an article by the late W. W. Meissner on Freud's ideas about Yahweh as a volcano god, which were part of 19th C Century German scholarship we now know often went too far. Given that ANE scholarship is a young discipline it needs sensitive sifting of modern sources to distinguish what really is possible and what is, well, more relevant to Freud and religion - you can use Meissner's Oxford Dict Freud entry to add "volcano god" there if you want. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently over-looked the NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Why is that not a good enough source? Considering all other gods of the past can now be attributed to a natural occurance, isn't it time we started to filter into the equation the very likely possibility Yahweh was also a natural phenomenon turned divine? --FieryDarts (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Fiery Darts, everyone is being very friendly to you, despite the fact that you posted WP:FRINGE like Jordan Maxwell, and slew of book titles including Acharya S which one can only assume you haven't read, or you would have known they were discussing Freud. Now I don't think you have earned the right to use the word "conveniently" at other editors (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA) simply because you said "NIV Archaeological Study Bible p.213" without any indication of who wrote that page, and what does he/she say about Yahweh being a "volcano god"? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Miss Buss and Miss Beale
Cupid's darts do not feel;
How different from us
Are Miss Beale and Miss Buss!
(Sorry, FieryDarts nickname tempted me and I couldn't resist: - well, I didn't try very hard.) PiCo (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=dictionary+of+deities+and+demons&source=bl&ots=aFutf-p3-p&sig=mJ4A2D-0VlAO3t7kz0BZc39-gcA&hl=en&ei=f4cMTfXmKomivgON6ZCJDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Yahweh&f=false "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible", K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst, Eerdmans, pp.913-916
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yahweh/Archive_5&oldid=1142783571"