Was God's wife edited out of the Bible? Atheist claims the Almighty had partner known as Asherah

[Abyssinia]

Apparently it was very dramatic with the theologian saying it would rock the foundations of Christianity. I do not get this. I thought that the Israelities did worship many Gods and that was why the people and the land had to be cleansed.

Here is a review of the episode ‘Did God have a wife.’

The findings that were supposed to rock the foundation, or undermine the basis, of Christianity and Judaism, were two-fold: 1) that ancient Israelites worshipped many gods, rather than one, meaning the origins of Christianity and Judaism are polytheistic, and that monotheism is a recent development; and 2) that ancient Israelites believed God, or El, or Yahweh - they’re all the same, said Dr Stavrakopoulou - had a wife, or “consort”: a goddess named Asherah.

telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8398099/Bibles-Buried-Secrets-Did-God-Have-a-Wife-review.html

There is also a great refutation of this documentary by By Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith:

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/03/23/theologians-ought-to-love-this-bbc-series-on-the-bible-too-bad-it-gives-in-to-dan-brown-style-silliness/

 

[Abyssinia]

Apparently it was very dramatic with the theologian saying it would rock the foundations of Christianity. I do not get this. I thought that the Israelities did worship many Gods and that was why the people and the land had to be cleansed. The worship of other Gods is condemned as idolatry.

Here is a review of the episode ‘Did God have a wife.’

The findings that were supposed to rock the foundation, or undermine the basis, of Christianity and Judaism, were two-fold: 1) that ancient Israelites worshipped many gods, rather than one, meaning the origins of Christianity and Judaism are polytheistic, and that monotheism is a recent development; and 2) that ancient Israelites believed God, or El, or Yahweh - they’re all the same, said Dr Stavrakopoulou - had a wife, or “consort”: a goddess named Asherah.

telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8398099/Bibles-Buried-Secrets-Did-God-Have-a-Wife-review.html

There is also a great refutation of this documentary by By Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith:

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/03/23/theologians-ought-to-love-this-bbc-series-on-the-bible-too-bad-it-gives-in-to-dan-brown-style-silliness/

 

[cargau]

A leading academic has claimed that God has a wife who was edited out of the Bible.

Atheist Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou says that the Almighty, known as Yahweh, had a partner called Asherah who was worshipped.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367981/Atheist-Dr-Francesca-Stavrakopoulout-BBC-face-religion.html#ixzz1HAAunsrz

One thing I have learned about “academics” is that they often outsmart themselves, especially when they have an agenda.

Asherah was a goddess who was worshiped by a number of near eastern cultures. Jews were not always monotheistic and thus temples to gods of other nations may have built. Much of the pertinent text of the Jewish Scripture was written during or after exile when the Jews would have been exposed to other cultures.

Baal was worshiped as a god of fertility. Rain in certain areas was scarce. Sometimes the Jews would hedge their bets and pray/sacrifice to more than one god. One of the reasons for the emergence of the prophets was to edify God’s people that there was/is only one God and he is Yahweh.

This so called academic needs to go back and do a bit more Scripture scholarship before she spouts out and confuses people…

 

[Lujack]

Why do you suppose that they would have done that?

Because the Daily Mail was either itself bigoted or was playing to the bigots for the sake of making money? Based on their record during the period that (name removed by moderator) is referring to, that seems to be the most reasonable answer.

 

[Darryl1958]

So it was a reactoin to the terrorist bombings of restaurants and the like then. A lot of people were angry about that no doubt.

 

[nguirado]

No, Baal was a goa’uld who was defeated by the Tok’ra with some help fom the Tauri.

I miss that show. The latest Stargate sucked.

 

[Lujack]

So it was a reactoin to the terrorist bombings of restaurants and the like then. A lot of people were angry about that no doubt.

I think that you ought to take a look at the actual material that’s being referenced; the Daily Mail did a lot of accusing and a lot of branding of people and events as being terrorists when that was sometimes far from the case, and really did try to promote an atmosphere of suspicion towards Irish.

I think, though, that I am going to err on the side of caution in continuing with this line of argument. My grandmother grew up in County Down but I am not from Ireland.

 

[boofind]

uhh the stuff the BBC puts out. I wish we had the choice of not paying for a TV license

 

[Darryl1958]

I think that you ought to take a look at the actual material that’s being referenced; the Daily Mail did a lot of accusing and a lot of branding of people and events as being terrorists when that was sometimes far from the case, and really did try to promote an atmosphere of suspicion towards Irish.

I think, though, that I am going to err on the side of caution in continuing with this line of argument. My grandmother grew up in County Down but I am not from Ireland.

IRA terrorism really gave the Irish a black eye in the court of world opinion. Blowing up regular folks as they are eating their happy meals in restaurants made a lot of people angry and not too interested in listening to nuance.
Sounds like the Globe was able to tap into that anger and give it a voice.

Not the best kind of journalism, but no doubt there was and is a niche market that was fulfilled by this.
The reason that is is so often quoted on these forums is not that there are a lot of fascists and racist here, but precisely because it is edgy with appeal to the hot buttons and emotions that provoke people into a response.

It is not very good proof that the Globe is a Nazi front either, no matter what side the took in the days of Hitler.
Suffice it to say that the Globe does not cater to nuance and sober second thought, but neither are the continuous insinuations that the Globe is a Nazi institution all that nuanced either. This is an edgy appeal to emotion too.
The Globe is probably not a fascist organization. I don’t know for sure, not being there, but fascism in general is very much a spent force in the English speaking world these days.

No need to fool yourself either that the people speaking with nuance and empathy and understanding about the Irish during the troubles were not just as angry either about what was happening through the IRA in the name of the Irish either . Opting for restraint does not mean that the anger isn’t there, just that it could explode without warning.

Rags like the Globe probably is are useful in that way. They give a voice to anger which otherwise might remain under the surface until it is too late.

 

[Lujack]

IRA terrorism really gave the Irish a black eye in the court of world opinion. Blowing up regular folks as they are eating their happy meals in restaurants made a lot of people angry and not too interested in listening to nuance.
Sounds like the Globe was able to tap into that anger and give it a voice.

Not the best kind of journalism, but no doubt there was and is a niche market that was fulfilled by this.

There was-but that doesn’t mean that it was a healthy market, or that appealing to it did any good for that region of Ireland. I think it is extremely important to understand that when it comes to the Troubles, the IRA were not the only terrorists involved, but those were the people that the Daily Mail almost exclusively focused on. There were Unionist terrorist organizations as well, but it was one side of the divide in particular that the Mail was concerned about. Even non-violent nationalist and civil rights organizations were tarred by the Mail as being no better than terrorists.

Its one thing to be angry about terrorist bombings-that is perfectly natural. But wouldn’t it also be natural to be angry about dead civilians killed by the British Army, or by Unionist terrorist organizations? Or even about institutional discrimination? To walk down the streets of that part of Ireland in the 1970’s was to find many, many things to be angry about-but the Daily Mail picked and chose.

The reason that is is so often quoted on these forums is not that there are a lot of fascists and racist here, but precisely because it is edgy with appeal to the hot buttons and emotions that provoke people into a response.

Which is why its important to point out the history of the Daily Mail. Its reporting can’t be trusted, and its facts are frequently not facts at all.

It is not very good proof that the Globe is a Nazi front either, no matter what side the took in the days of Hitler.
Suffice it to say that the Globe does not cater to nuance and sober second thought, but neither are the continuous insinuations that the Globe is a Nazi institution all that nuanced either. This is an edgy appeal to emotion too.
The Globe is probably not a fascist organization. I don’t know for sure, not being there, but fascism in general is very much a spent force in the English speaking world these days.

No, but it is fairly useful to note that there is no point in its history at which the Daily Mail is a reliable source. Its the New York Post on steroids.

No need to fool yourself either that the people speaking with nuance and empathy and understanding about the Irish during the troubles were not just as angry either about what was happening through the IRA in the name of the Irish either . Opting for restraint does not mean that the anger isn’t there, just that it could explode without warning.

Rags like the Globe probably is are useful in that way. They give a voice to anger which otherwise might remain under the surface until it is too late.

I’m trying to be careful here, but there are other things that people had rights to be angry about-there was the UDA and the Shankill Butchers, there was Bloody Sunday, there were some other horrendous decisions by the British Army, and there was also the IRA. Which is why its tremendously important to speak with restraint when it comes to the Troubles-for the Daily Mail to be angry only about the IRA (and vigorously defensive when it came to the possibility of the British Army doing anything wrong) was them valuing certain people over other people.

It did no one any good for the Daily Mail to reduce a tremendously complicated situation to one where the only terrorists were the IRA.

 

[onthenarrowpath]

Atheist Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou says that the Almighty…

That right there tells me all I need to know. Whenever I hear/read anything from an atheist commenting about God, I immediately ignore it and move on. It’s utterly preposterous to think an atheist would have anything remotely accurate to say about God.

 

[Darryl1958]

To make the claim that a goddess was edited out of the Bible would entail an extensive rewriting and reweaving of some original texts at some later date in which the earlier authentic writings were comprehensively changed to say something very, very different.
Indeed many Biblical scholars do believe that various text were weaved into a Biblical mosaic likely in the time of Josiah, obsensibly for the aims of weaving the diverse people of the region with their own different texts into a unitary whole. Modern scholarship tends to see things in terms of political goals.
Why at the same time substantial changes to the meaning of the text would be introduced would be a little unclear, and counterproductive even.