m Signing comment by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3 - "→Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020: " |
→Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020: new section |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
I think it should be edited saying Yahweh have originally been a storm god instead of saying he was originally a storm god. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3|2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3]] ([[User talk:2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3#top|talk]]) 09:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I think it should be edited saying Yahweh have originally been a storm god instead of saying he was originally a storm god. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3|2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3]] ([[User talk:2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3#top|talk]]) 09:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Yahweh|answered=no}} |
|||
[[User:CycoMa|CycoMa]] ([[User talk:CycoMa|talk]]) 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Hey I think this specific line needs to be edited. “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4]” |
|||
I wasn’t very specific in my last request, but I think it should be edited to Yahweh might had originally been a storm/warrior god instead of saying he was originally a storm/warrior god. |
|||
When looking at the sources cited on this article, they state that the debate about the origin and original character of Yahweh is unknown. |
|||
This article even admits that this claim doesn’t have universal support. |
Revision as of 10:02, 6 January 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I agree. it should be spelt 'YHWH'
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
the vocalization is adding insult to injury. religions need be respected, period. only christians pronounce this day in a rather antisemitic way, period. I am not jewish, but this is cultural, not only religious, and it's more than saying 'fuck', but rather speakingly hatefully and deridingly, so to say. the full spelling is wrong wrong. FURTHERMORE, it is OUTRAGEOUS for there to be SO MANY articles about the same thing, "jehovah, yahweh, tetragrammaton" and even "el". all dealing with caananite religion should be in one spot, caananite or semitic religion, that's it. it's like if we did us many articles for all the germanic tribes, englihs, frankish, german, nordic, and then by time. it'd be too many articles an should all be one, germanic religian an then maybe one on neo paganism. too many articles bout the abrahamic 'god' or whatever is wrong and dumb. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 14:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- We're not interested in your opinion, since WP:RNPOV is the germane policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- NO, religions do NOT "need to be respected, period". This is an encyclopedia. It's beholden to fact and nothing else. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yup, a serious encyclopedia does not pander to piety. We side with objective historical facts and with mainstream academic learning, we do not pamper true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is neither a serious encyclopedia nor a real one; there are plenty of examples of bias and baked in exclusions of unpopular viewpoints (my favorite being "give the most weight to the one with the most coverage", which penalized me for adding the coup d'etat template to the Mishima Incident). This said, I will give Wikipedia credit on this one, Yoandri. Look on the Muhammad page and you will see many pictures of his actual face. --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is neither a serious encyclopedia nor a real one; there are plenty of examples of bias and baked in exclusions of unpopular viewpoints (my favorite being "give the most weight to the one with the most coverage", which penalized me for adding the coup d'etat template to the Mishima Incident). This said, I will give Wikipedia credit on this one, Yoandri. Look on the Muhammad page and you will see many pictures of his actual face. --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
By the way, on the second point, the original Yahweh and El and the canonical Abrahamic God overlap significantly but are not identical. Combining all those articles would be like combining the articles on Zeus and Jupiter or Cronus and Saturn. Or, to use a non-religious example, it would be like combining the articles on Hungary, the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and the Magyars. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. YHWH is the True Name of God; this article's title is the Name Jews cannot and Christians should not write or spell out. The God in this article remains the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He also remains the God of the Christians and, technically, is Allah as well. Wikipedia is not presenting a neutral point of view here (and that entire claim is itself a myth).
- Splitting the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament (or in this case, pre-Exile Judaism in the Kingdom of Israel) is a Gnostic concept equal to the Demiurge and certainly not representative of the Judeo-Christian God or the canon of the Bible. I've seen many Atheists claim that Judaism was retroactively altered after Babylon, but no Jew or Christian acknowledges such things.
- To list God as He was seen by Ancient Israel as separate from, well, God, is a matter of opinion not backed by Abrahamic tradition or any Jewish or Christian source. Judaism has always been monotheistic. That doesn't mean the Jews were. God is a jealous God, the Bible says, and He constantly punished them when they syncretized with the other Canaanite and Levantine deities.
- This is basic Judeo-Christian theology, and Wikipedia, as usually, prefers its narratives and its ivory tower snobbery over any serious attempt to listen to the common man. Those who say Wikipedia is neutral ignore that its most devoted editors and authorities are a cabal of volunteers sharing left-of-center (on the American scale) political viewpoints.
- In short, the name of this article should be the name that Ancient Israel would have called the Lord. That's YHWH, Adonai, I AM, or The LORD.
- --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Of all the massive, biased, spiteful problems with this despicable article, an article SEETHING with hatred from the first line to the last, THIS is what you get hung up on? A relatively young taboo on saying or writing the name, which clearly didn't exist at the time the scriptures were written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Wrong Name
A good portion of this article is from the modern Christian interpretation of texts from an ancient, loosely Jewish, type of mysticism known as Kabbalah, which is not taught in most modern Jewish religions. Jews don't have a bible; they have the Torah and the Tanakh. In fact the name "Yahweh" itself resulted from a complex series of misinterpretations. The Ancient Hebrews, who were not allowed to write the name of God, "Adonai", had contact with the Ancient Romans, who could not say the name of God. When the Hebrews dictated the name of God for the Romans to transcribe, they spelled out his name with the Hebrew letters "יהוה", pronounced "Yud, Hei, Vav, Hei". The Romans then wrote down the first letters of what they heard using their own alphabet, "YHVH".[1] After being copied many times over the years, this eventually became "Yahweh". Interestingly enough, the origin of the name "Jehovah" is a very similar story.[2] 2606:A000:8148:D800:7841:9A2C:6610:CAED (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your do not make the call. Modern WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes the call. WP:COMMONNAME is part of our WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- He's right, though. The name of this article is the traditional interpretation of the full, spelled-out, True Name of God and, as Jews and hardline Christians can attest, is never to be written out. Ask an Iron Age or Bronze Age Jew what their God was and they would NOT tell you the Name in this article, for that name is not to be repeated because it is so holy. "YHWH", the Tetteragram, is acceptable in its place, as is Adonai and The LORD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia does not pamper true believers, it always sides with WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. with WP:CHOPSY. You have to obey our WP:RULES if you want to edit here. We don't have to obey your rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, the only thing Wikipedia always sides with is WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is with mainstream scholarship for the foreseeable future, but WP:Consensus can change. Scripture and religion articles such as this one are owned by a small cabal of editors who are fiercely attached to mainstream, modern "scholarship" for sources, which are not necessarily the most accurate, or the best, by many measures, but they are often the easiest to access, search and cite. They are also the best to support wacky, never-seen-before ideas. What I am saying is if the controlling cabal changed substantially, WP:CONSENSUS about "what Wikipedia sides with" could change. That's all I am saying. Elizium23 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a cabal. We are simply aware that there is a distinction between history (of Christianity, of the Bible, etc.) and theology. In matters of theology we have simply agreed to disagree. E.g. Seventh-day Adventist theology isn't WP:FRINGE, but SDA Bible scholarship is, because it is preaching to the choir and only gets traction from true believers. It is fine and dandy that they preach their theology to their own choir, but that does not fly in historical scholarship. Wikipedia will never say that SDA theology is false, because that's in the eye of the beholder and we could never reach a consensus upon the true religion and its true theology. But in matter of historical facts, Wikipedia sides with mainstream historians, not with those who consider that history is ancilla theologiae. History has simply emancipated from the nonage of theology, and this also holds for Ancient Near East archeology and for Bible scholarship. There is no anger against theology, it is simply that being theologically orthodox has become irrelevant for Bible scholars. They are no longer concerned with keeping up appearances of piety. They perform hard-core scholarship and are not bothered by accusations of heresy. They go where evidence leads them. Wikipedia sides with historical criticism because that's what major universities do with the Bible. So, as usual, Wikipedia is merely a reflection of what happens outside of Wikipedia, in this case in major universities. So, no, a majority opinion among Wikipedia editors does not trump Ivy Plus. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Good god can y’all settle down. I feel like y’all are pushing agendas which is technically against Wikipedia’s policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:3C9F:DC32:A66D:A416 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- My only agenda here is that of Wikipedia, namely that we should render WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP according to WP:DUE. See WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have a problem with this article.
I have a problem with this article. The quote “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.” I couldn’t find any sources directly saying this. I think a source took a quote he found and took it too literally.
I think doing can mislead people because not every line in a holy book or any religious text is meant to be literally.
Like a quote “But I will sing of your strength, in the morning I will sing of your love; for you are my fortress, my refuge in times of trouble.” Doesn’t literally mean someone is a fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:3C9F:DC32:A66D:A416 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Storm an d warrior deity?
I have a problem with this article. The quote “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.” I couldn’t find any sources directly saying this. I think a source took a quote he found and took it too literally.
I think doing can mislead people because not every line in a holy book or any religious text is meant to be literally. Like a quote “But I will sing of your strength, in the morning I will sing of your love; for you are my fortress, my refuge in times of trouble.” Doesn’t literally mean someone is a fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:F86F:4835:4204:D4BF (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- See as an example this Oxford University Press book.[1]. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I read it and it states some scholars believe Yahweh was El and others think Yahweh was a storm god. So there is obviously no full scholarly consensus on what Yahweh originally was. Doing this is heavily misleading and can cause misinformation. I think there should be a note of some kind.
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020
I believe the line “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.[5]” should be removed because there is little evidence supporting this. And many scholars are still divided on this. Like some scholars claimed he is El and others claim he was a storm god. Or there should be a note telling people there is no known origin of Yahweh or what he originally was. 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- You need to cite some professionally-published mainstream academic sources (like the ones cited at [4] and [5]) that support your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The sources in themselves have problems, this article literally admits there is no known origin of Yahweh’s name. Like one of the books admit the issue is divined. Some scholars say he was El, others say he was a storm god, and others said he was a god of the forge. So there are tons of contradictions on what he originally was.
So it feels have assed to say he was a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- You need to cite some professionally-published mainstream academic sources that support your claims. Not just your analysis of existing sources or WP:CIRCULAR. The blue links are to policies explaining why. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn’t it better to put a note stating that there isn’t a fully accepted scholarly consensus on the matter than say this is absolutely the case? I feel like some people might read that line and it accept as fact without reading further into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Also this isn’t personal observation. The source that claims he was a warrior/weather god says some scholars say he was El and others say he was a weather god. So that source admits that there isn’t much scholarly consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:7D09:A244:6F21:21AA (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Plus this is basically the only article that argues Yahweh was a weather god you most likely misinterpreted the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:5100:646F:A705:D121 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- He was a weather god, then conflated with El. Both are true, at different times. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have heard many sources saying Yahweh conflated with El. But I couldn’t find many sources saying he was originally a storm god. Some sources say he was a god of metallurgy.[1]
Other sources don’t mention him originally being a storm god. [2] [3] [4]
So I think relying on one source isn’t good enough the source that claims this might need a peer review or it the source could be outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:E982:26D6:8B56:D235 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Also one of the sources cited state that scholars are divided on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:E982:26D6:8B56:D235 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I do think that line saying in “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4] who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.[5]” should be updated or removed to avoid any confusion.
Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020
The beginning of this can already be misinterpreted. Kindly refer to the book of Genesis in Judeo-Christian Holy Bible please. That's the first most important source for this, why look all over the place, it's all in there already. Maybe mention on the article that it would help if the reader just referred to the Holy Bible instead of here. Of course we wouldn't be proper researchers if we didn't have many sources. (I could understand that.) but the Holy Bible is composed of many books written by many writers spanning a great amount of time.
Moses (the reported writer of Genesis), already wrote that God (Yahweh) created the Heavens and the Earth. The Hebrews lived in Egypt in ancient times and helped build the pyramids with slave labor, which would explain why there are mentions of Him in Egypt. Also early people were already conversing with God (Yahweh) so most people knew Him already then. Whether they chose to obey Him is another matter.
Also El also refers to Yahweh, as in El Shaddai, it is one of His other names. (This is mentioned in current article.) Please do not confuse people with statement regarding consorts like Asherah, these are part of the foreign gods, that deceive people.
the article might have gotten it wrong regarding EL. the Israelites already knew Him as creator, one true God. The Canaanites are the ones that confused Him with other Gods (conflated is the article's term). Of course Israelites were also led to false foreign God worship by copying people around them. But Yahweh was the God of Abraham and Jacob (Israel).
The article does have good parts like this: By the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world.[12] -(as even the conquering nation's kings discovered that Yahweh was the one true God.) 207.102.153.95 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- We do not cater for true believers, see WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying I couldn’t find sources showing proof Yahweh was originally a storm god. I know it seems like I’m trying to push a goal here, but the sources cited on this article literally admit that whether or not he was originally a storm god or El is debatable. Plus I couldn’t find many sources stating he was a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be edited saying Yahweh have originally been a storm god instead of saying he was originally a storm god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4C89:1A00:C077:87BD:A313:5CF3 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020
CycoMa (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey I think this specific line needs to be edited. “In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a storm-and-warrior deity[4]” I wasn’t very specific in my last request, but I think it should be edited to Yahweh might had originally been a storm/warrior god instead of saying he was originally a storm/warrior god. When looking at the sources cited on this article, they state that the debate about the origin and original character of Yahweh is unknown. This article even admits that this claim doesn’t have universal support.