🤓YAHWEH & ELOHIM🤓

[BigJohn]

Discussion about Yahweh and Elohim.

Please put in your own input into this discussion.

[Miss Hepburn]

My input...I would be a student and know little.

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

My input...I would be a student and know little.

I'm with you.


(I'm tempted to post the zen saying:- "Better to see the face than to hear the name" but........)

As Oscar Wilde once said "I can resist everything except temptation"....

Sometimes, seriously, if I didn't laugh I would weep.

[BigJohn]

Actually, you have brushed up against the words for Yahweh and Elohim, many of times.

Yahweh, unfortunately got translated for the most part as LORD whereas Elohim is generally translated as God. By the way, in Hebrew, these words are pronounced very closely to that of Yahweh and Elohim.

The first creation account explicitly speaks of Elohim. In the second creation account, Yahweh is introduced. I suspect the reason why some criticize the two creation accounts, is, as I suspect, where written by two different groups.

The same can be said of the two different flood accounts.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

The first creation account explicitly speaks of Elohim. In the second creation account, Yahweh is introduced. I suspect the reason why some criticize the two creation accounts, is, as I suspect, where written by two different groups.

Your suspicions are well founded. Most theologians adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis.

[DavidHenson]

Originally Posted by Altair

Your suspicions are well founded. Most theologians adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis.

The question is, why? Protestant reform failed, leaving them with their pagan mythology and Greek philosophy. They can't make sense of the Bible and it makes them look stupid. So they go for the atheistic agenda which is unsubstantiated but at least doesn't make them look as stupid to the atheists who think science can diminish the Bible.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica: "Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts are merely the reflection of a much later period."

W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly that there is hardly any evidence at all in the ancient Near East for documentary or literary fabrications."

[The Cobbler's Apprentice]

Originally Posted by DavidHenson

W. F. Albright

"In the years since his death, Albrights methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned" (Wiki)

It would seem difficult to keep up with Biblical studies.


Ref:- http://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

[DavidHenson]

Originally Posted by The Cobbler's Apprentice

"In the years since his death, Albrights methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned" (Wiki)

It would seem difficult to keep up with Biblical studies.


Ref:- http://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

Well that's true. We are all imperfect. Some get popularized and are subject to increasing scrutiny. I always ignore the person saying a thing and concentrate on what they are saying. You measure that, not the person. Tradition is contrary to the Bible. If scholars adhere to tradition they will be at odds with the Bible. That doesn't mean they don't have something you can learn.

The documentary theory evolved over time. So does theology. Interpretation. The availability of MSS.

The DT is just a literary speculation. Conjecture that only makes sense if you want it to. There isn't one scrap of evidence to warrant merit. Portions of Daniel were well established only shortly after the DT would date them.

It just doesn't add up. To me it's like the trinity or evolution. Don't bother arguing about it because people who want to accept it will accept it no matter what the facts are.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by DavidHenson

EXCERPT

Protestant reform failed, leaving them with their pagan mythology and Greek philosophy. They can't make sense of the Bible and it makes them look stupid. So they go for the atheistic agenda which is unsubstantiated but at least doesn't make them look as stupid to the atheists who think science can diminish the Bible.

Are you saying, the source for 'my material', the Masoretic Text, is somehow invalid even though it is the source text probably for your New Testament along with virtually every Bible.

The Documentary Hypothesis did not come by chance. Those who have looked at the various texts used by translators to come up with a new translation are generally not seen by the average person but I would say those who have looked at the Documentary Hypothesis probably have several of those text.

For example, Jehovah Witnesses use the Westcott and Hort Greek text for their New Testament.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Altair

Your suspicions are well founded. Most theologians adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis.

I discovered this all on my own and then later discovered others had came to the same conclusions.

To me, the Documentary Hypothesis clears up a lot of the issues people have with the Pentatuch.