Talk:Baal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biblical References?

This article is highly deficient in not discussing the references in the Old Testament to the worshippers of Baal (Philistines) with whom the Hebrews were intermittently at war. This writer had the privilege of visiting the ruins of an ancient temple to Baal in Palmyra in eastern Syria, a 3rd Century B.C. site designed in a highly developed Hellenistic style.Tom Cod (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Biblical reference is covered in the "The demon entitled Baal" section, as Biblical perspective on other deities is always dismissive. There are also some other references to the Bible in the article. Cush (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

References Needed

Could the research here be better documented? I think that we are ignoring geography here. Don't the people of the region from Baal came know his history? I see a verbal mythology growing here that doesn't regard history well enough. I think we can be sure that the Baal of the Bible is not the Beelzebub which was known as Satan. Not every adversary of Yahweh is Satan. Please distinguish origins in written works and tablets and find a reference that will not be disputed easily, if you can. I appreciate that the story of Baal also includes contemporary perceptions, but perhaps we are ignoring textbooks on the subject. ;)

---

Oops. Dispraise was not a neologism. Yet my dictionary doesn't list etymology or whether the word has become anachronistic. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:24 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Dispraise" is an excellent word. It doesn't carry the baggage of "condemn." I have given up "contemn" as people no longer understand it. Words may become obsolete but never anachronistic. The use of a word may be an anachronism though. Wetman 01:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I might change "Canaanite" to "Ancient Syrian" for a few reasons. Canaanite is a biblical term and suggests that the source of the entry is the Bible. However, most of the material comes from Ugarit. Also, Canaan usually implies the territory between biblical Judea and the sea. However, Ba'al was worshipped in a much wider area throughout ancient Syria (particularly the west, I think). Therefore, I find "Ancient Syrian" less ambiguous.--Administer 01:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It's always best to check some good archaeology sites and go with their flow, without deciding in the comfort of your own home. Wetman 01:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It depends on their specialty: biblical studies on one hand or Ugaritic language, ancient Middle Eastern disciplines, and comparative religion on the other. I'll leave it "Canaanite" for now, since that may be more meaningful to the audience most likely interested in the topic.--Administer 03:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, Canaanite is not just a Biblical term, and it's usage here is, in my opinion, more correct than the majority of the contents of the article itself. It seems to me that the majority of the article does in fact have the Bible as the main source. Furthermore, it uses the Bible in a way that is inconsistent with the findings of Bible critics as well as archaeology. But I don't have all the sources together right now to lay out a complete list of inaccuracies. However, at this point I'd like to express interest in seeing a section that addresses the traits of Ba'al that both El and Elohim of the Israelites co-opted in later stages.

On to the main point of this entry; I think "Canaanite" works better than "Ancient Syrian" since it is more correct of a term. "Ancient Syrian" is based on a modern geo-political classification that is mostly irrelevant to biblical studies. On the otherhand, "Canaanite" is no more correct than "Amorite" since the two are more or less synonymous in the Bible. Under the present circumstances it would be optimal to be able to use both, but that would be cumbersome and, when the article meets higher standards, incorrect. Another possibility would be "pre-Israelite", but the problem with this here is that the Israelites worship Ba'al as well. The only other thing that I can think of would be "Northwestern-Semitic". The usefulness of this term is that it describes who worshiped Ba'al.

You say,'Canaan usually implies the territory between biblical Judea and the sea' To my understanding, that is misleading. Rather, they lived from northern Palestine, along the sea, between the hills, and into Central modern day Syria. This can be shown in different geographical references throughout the Hebrew Bible as well as the findings of archaeologists. I already addressed the problem with "Ancient Syria" as well as the futility of using the terms "Amorite" and "Canaanite" interchangeably. The case with Ba'al is that he has a very long history [dates needed] - and this is another point that needs to be addressed in the article - and was shared and worshipped by several peoples and in several areas. Thus a very general, yet ethnically and historically correct description is preferred. Northwestern-Semitic accomplishes the former, but is still insufficient as regards the latter. Thus, my vote is in for keeping with the status quo, until more a more suitable replacement can be found. Comments? Criticisms? For references on defining Canaanite, see A History of Isreal by John Bright, fourth edition p 116. hayadel

---

Ba‘al as a divine title in Israel and Judah

I've added the following quote from Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary to this section.

At first the name Baal was used by the Jews for their
God without discrimination, but as the struggle between
the two religions developed, the name Baal was given up
in Judaism as a thing of shame, and even names like
Jerubbaal were changed to Jerubbesheth.

I think it says very succinctly almost everything the section says. However, it's still short enough to quote without infringing on the copyright.

I also think that it is from a source that is likely to be trusted by people with a religious point of view and this will help to make it clear that what is being described in this section is not an attempt to somehow undermine Judiasm and Christianity (by equating YaHWeH with Baal), but is simply an accepted fact regarding the evolution of the usage of the term baal in Hebrew.--Heathcliff 01:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For a critic of the idea that Baal was a demon, see below:

Ba’al Worship: The Testimony of Scripture Alice C. Linsley

Are El and Baal different names for the same God or are these different Gods? Though religious practices associated with Baal are clearly condemned, there is evidence that these names were used interchangeably to speak of the Creator who is sovereign over all the earth, whose emblem in the ancient cosmology was the sun. El/Baal gave light and life to the whole earth and established maleness and femaleness for his purposes. The east represented God’s arousal and the west the bridal chamber. This symbolism continues to this day in Jewish mysticism. It is also the basis for the Christian expectation of the return of the Christ to take his bride, the Church.

In the religion of the Paleo-Dominion submission to El or Baal as Master was the mark of righteousness. The righteous man sought to be a good servant to the Master, fulfilling all that he perceived to be required by his God. In this context submission and humility constituted faithfulness. God was very high over the earth, the ruler of all things. God was Master. Those who set themselves up as high and mighty risked God’s wrath since the One God has no match. This is way Lamech is remembered a braggart who bragged to his wives Adah (Dawn) and T-zillah (Dust) that he had killed a man. Lamech’s sin isn’t simply his killing of another (for we do not know the circumstances of that killing), but that he had set himself as an equal to God.

In the religion of the Paleo-Dominion El or Baal was represented by the sun. Later the sun was represented as El’s chariot; thus the solar chariots at the temple that were destroyed by King Josiah in his attempt to eradicate the worship of Baal (II Kings 23:10-12). In this cosmology God was viewed as having two wives, one in the east and a second in the west. Thus by calling his wives Dawn and Dust, Lamech claims equality with God. Other afro-asiatic chiefs of Paleo-Dominion maintained two wives in separate households on a north-south axis as a sign of respect and submission to El or Baal. Thus Abraham maintained Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba. There is evidence also that Kayin (Cain) maintained a wife in Nok (Nod) and another in Kano, again on a north-south axis.

Both “el” and “ba’al” mean power or strength, often rendered “master.” Baal is said to have had a wife named El-issa, which in Hebrew means the wife/female of El. The name El appears over 250 times in the Old Testament. The name Baal appears less often and is almost always presented in a negative light because the prophets and priests of Yahweh sought to eradicate the evil practices that developed logically from the ancient cosmology as a result of man’s sinful nature.

Consider some of the names for God, found in these constructs:

El-elyon: the most high God,El-shaddi: the all sufficient God; El-olam: The everlasting God, el-echad: The One God, El- hanne’eman: The faithful God; El-tsaddik: The righteous God, El-emet: The God of truth or the reliable God; Immanu-el: God with us

The name “Baal” appears in constructs with more earthy associations, suggesting that teh fous shifted from the holy otherness of El/Baal to the creature and creaturely.

Baal-berith: The God of the covenant,Baal-hammon: The God of fertility, Baal-shamam: The God who guards, Baal-gad: the God of good fortune, Baal-shalishah: The God of three; Baal-tamar: The God of the palm (The date palm was a symbol of fertility.) Baal-peor: The God of the opening/hole (female reproductive organ); and Baal-zephon: The God of the north.

Regading this last construt, Baal's cult seems to have its fullst expression among the Phoenicians in the north, and Carthage in North Africa was a major enter for child sacrifice to Baal up to about 300 B.C. This is significant because the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22) takes place after Abraham went to live among the Philistines (Phoenicians) “for a long time.” (Genesis 21:34)

Further, there are many names that incorporate El or Baal, and the people who held these names are all descendents of Noah and sometimes closely related.

Genesis 4:18 Mehuja-el (who proclaims God); Genesis 5:12 Mahalal-el (the Blessed God); Genesis 16:11 Ishma-el (God hears); Genesis 32:28 Isra-el (He prevails/struggles with God); Numbers 1:6 Shelumi-el (God is my perfection or peace); Numbers 1:9 El-iab (God is father); Numbers 1:10 El-ishama (God guards); Numbers 1:10 Gamali-el (Recompense of God or camel of God); Numbers 1:13 Pagi-el (prevention or prayer of God); Numbers 1:15 El-iasaph (God increases); Numbers 3:19 Uzzi-el (God’s strength); Numbers 10:29 Reu-el (God’s friend;) Numbers 11:26 El-dad (favored of God); Numbers 13:12 Ammi-el (God’s people); Numbers 16:37 El-eazar (God is my help); Numbers 26:45 Malki-el (God is king); Samuel Samu-el (heard/asked of God)

There are also a few descendents of Noah named for Baal. Two are especially significant: Saul’s son, Ishbaal and the King of Sidon, Ethbaal.

II Samuel 2:12 Ish-baal (God saves)

Ishbaal’s name was changed to Ishbosheth, meaning “man of shame.” This is an editorial gloss showing that those who worshipped Yahweh stood against the worship practices associated with Baal.

I Kings 16:31 Eth-baal (Strength of Baal)

Ethbaal was the King of Sidon and the father of Jezebel. Ethbaal was not simply a king. He also was the high priest of Baal who sought to spread the worship of Baal throughout the ancient Near East from Tyre, his capital city. His daughter followed in her father’s footsteps when she attempted to wipe out the prophets of Yahweh, reversing the gains made by Josiah, the Reformer.

The worship of Baal represents a falling away from true worship and the cult of Baal came under strong criticism from the prophets, especially Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:8:3). King Josiah is praised in II Kings 23 for taking action to eradicate Baal worship in Israel. Hosea 2:16-17 says: “In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer all me my ‘baal.’ I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked.”

Now we may ask why Baal worship was so forcefully opposed by the prophets and the priests loyal to Yahweh. Here are some reasons:

· Child sacrifice · Sacred prostitution · The high places held phallic symbols (“lingum” in the Vedic tradition. Called “pillars” in the Bible.) · Probably also symbols of the female reproductive organ (“yoni” in Vedic tradition. Called “peor” in the Bible.)

Under the influence of the rising power of Phoenicia, the worship of El became corrupt. Baal worship constituted idolatry because it focused on reproduction, fertility rites and sexual activity, substituting these for worship of the Holy God. Children were “offered back” to Baal (possibly still born or dead infants) with the petition to give a replacement child. Animals were sacrificed to Baal also, but when circumstances were desperate first-born sons were sacrificed as in the case of the king of Moab (II Kings 3:27).

In Jeremiah 7:30-31, the prophet declares God’s word against this practice:

“The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They have set up their horrors in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn theirs sons and daughters in the fire: something I never commanded, nor did it even enter my mind.”

Does this mean that those who held to the worship of El as he revealed himself to the Patriarchs, practiced a false religion? Not necessarily. The ancient cosmology of El being sovereign over all the earth, whose emblem was the sun, prevails among the righteous. One of the greatest of Israel’s prophets proclaimed this understanding. Amos praises God, saying: “For look! He it is who forges the mountains, creates the wind, who reveals his mind to humankind, who makes the dawn turn to darkness and strides on the heights of the world: Yahweh, God Sabaoth, is his name.” (Amos 4: 13)

At issue is not the cosmology held by the worshippers of El or Baal. At issue is the degradation of the holy places through the practices of sacred prostitution and child sacrifice. These practices were condemned by the prophets and the offering of sacrifices outside of the temple was forbidden by the priests of Yahweh. The corrective measures of God through the prophets and priests set a standard for holiness and worship that was far above that of the majority of people living at that time in the land of Canaan. Yet, it is clear that the ancient cosmology persisted and continues to this day, most prominently in Islam.

No comment

Moved here without further comment: " King Offa was Baal revivalist and designed his border with Wales along the twelve cycles of the original pagan Baal. Offa was probably converted to Ballism by a rogue Egyptian Shamasi called Erony Bola Oacs who preached the way of the goat throughout Mercia and post Druidic Gwynedd." --Wetman 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite opening

The section that reads "but they were not used in reference between a superior and an inferior or of a master to a slave." needs to be re-written; I don't understand it, but I don't know exactly what should be written there. --Slashme 09:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Big merge

Having a seperate Ba'al article for those researching the Ba'al of Carthage / Phoenicians or demon ba'al unfairly cuts these people off from the primary, better source of information on the Semetic god ba'al, which is in this article. So I've taken a lot of time to merge the Ba'al of Carthage article and the demon ba'al article with this article, while preserving all previous information, including on the non-religious Hebrew word ba'al.

Thank you!

Nick

Mergist

Nick 13:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The historical development is not set out in orderly enough fashion, perhaps. At any rate, a recent editor blanked blocks of text, saying "Besides the name and the god Baal position as a "pagan" god, there is no point in leading people to believe that they are synomymous". Perhaps the article needs to lead the reader more obviously and emphatically through the history of "Baal". History of ideas is the last kind of history one comes to understand. --Wetman 11:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That was then. A huge improvement has been made in the interim. --Wetman 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert war over demon baal

Satanael: respectfully, deleting 99% of the Baal demon section AGAIN is inappropriate. They're very related. The Demon originated from the god! How can you say it is not related and just delete it? There is no claim they are "synonomous," this is clear. But this is clearly related and worthy of inclusion.

I reverted it...AGAIN!

Having no detail on the demon Ba'al in the main Ba'al article is bad for those researching the demon Ba'al because it unfairly cuts these people off from the primary, better source of information on the origins of ba'al. I've taken a lot of time to compile the Ba'al of Carthage article and the demon ba'al article with this article, while preserving all previous information, including on the non-religious Hebrew word ba'al. Please don't delete huge blocks of text.

Wetman: if you can think of a better way to integrate this text, please help :)

Nick 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It reads well to me, but we have at least one reader who doesn't get the drift... --Wetman 10:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, "doesn't get the drift." First of all, this article is about the god Baal, not the demon. The demon has little similarity with the god except for the name and the fact that Baal is a pagan god. Second of all, you haven't just put the info regarding the demon into the article, you added everything, including accounts in fiction, which has little relevancy to THE GOD BAAL.

Second, you specifically made them synonymous by redirecting the Baal (demon) article to this article.

Third, I don't see the point in adding Beelzebub into this article as well. Even though Beelzebub is one of the many Baal variants, so is Baal Phegor and Baal Berith, but there would be no reason to add them as well, just for the fact that they originally correspond to Baal.

However, have it your way. Just for the record, you didn't "win" anything, I just prefer to have allies rather than adversaries. Second of all, if further info is added to the Baal (demon) or the Beelzebub article, don't add it here as well, as there is a reason for why those are headed as "main articles".

Finally, I want to point out that after you have read and replied to this, I will remove the "Fictional accounts of the demon Baal" section, as it is pointless to have it here. If people want it, they can read it in the "Baal (demon)" article. And preferably, I'll remove the Beelzebub info as well, as there is little reason to keep it here, just because he originates from Baal. Satanael 12:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can remove the "Baal in fiction" section, but please do not remove Beelzebub. The main variants of Baal should be in this article, the major variants and development of Ba'al is very relevent to anyone studying Ba'al and must remain. Nick 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Done it. :) Satanael 14:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

_____________________________________________

A book on archeology I read stated that the evidence of Carthagininans sacrificing their children was scant and may have occurred in isolated instances during the final desperate days of the Third Punic ("Phonecian") War. Let us never forget that the Carthaginians were victims of genocide and therefore the victor's history-like that, to a lesser extent, of the Spanish over the Aztecs-should be viewed with skepticism.

I had the privilege of visiting the largely intact Hellenic classical remains of a temple to Baal in eastern Syrian outside the town of Palymra, where the fabled Queen Zenobia who fought the Romans circa 125 A.D. was from. I makes one wonder about the stories in the Old Testament demonizing the followers of Baal. It makes one think they may have been members of a different tribe whose "book" has been lost to history, perhaps by being destroyed by its enemies.

___________________________________

Baal is an idea. One with a history. In its history, "Baal" has had different connotations in different cultures. They are all part of the context that an encyclopedia offers. Baal (demon) should be represented here in a brief version with a "Main article: Baal (demon)" heading. A fastidious editor would have set off the fiction stuff at Baal in market-directed culture or somesuch, rather than just deleting it, though I understand the temptation to erase that clutter. --Wetman 14:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC).

About Beelzebub

I was just wondering, just how much do we know about Beelzebub/Baal Zebub from modern scholars. I mean, as I have no scholarly works on Semitic mythology nor Baal worship, I'm kinda stuck with what I know from before. I have noticed similarities between Beelzebub and Apollo, and there is also a Greek god called Myiagros, who is a fly-swatter god, but as far as I know, there is a meager amount of info on the god Beelzebub as we know... Satanael 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, not so much

"In the ancient world of the Persian Empire, from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, worship of inanimate idols of wood and metal was being rejected in favor of the one living God."

Ummm, yeah. Maybe someone might want to clean this up? --Jfruh 18:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Peremptory and flagrant, this 'masterpiece' is obviously a sample of the notorious Judaist propaganda. Whoever stands behind it, I cannot but to point out the bright mistakes that the ignorant author of this naive statement has made: 'worship inanimate idols of wood and metal' - this conclusion reflects misunderstanding of the religious practices of the ancient Near East. In fact, the ancient worshiped the Gods that inhabitated the idols and rituals were done to set Their Presence in idols. 'The one living God' - the quantity of praised Gods had no importance whatsoever and there were definitely no beliefs based on worship of dead deities. Asharidu (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the paragraph. Asharidu (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you are the one pushing a POV here; so do you have any published references whatsoever that support your assertions or share your opinions, or is merely it your own personal POV? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious for everyone that the sentence I've quoted is biased against all polytheistic religions and thus it can't be considered neutral - enough evidence to edit it. What to the references you're talking about, I have to admit it's hard to give them since almost all inhabitants of the ancient Near East considered idols as 'containers' for the Presence of their Deities: the Nabateans, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Ugarithians, Egyptians etc. The list of scientific works on the spiritual culture of these peoples and their understanding of the role of cult images (statues of Deities, Bet-El's etc) would be incredibly huge. But if you're curious about this subject, I would like to advice you to begin your research with the following edition: Walker Ch., Dick M. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian Mis Pi Ritual. Helsinki, 2001, this fine work includes a very helpful translation of the clay tablet BM45749 from the British Museum and might be a great introduction into the religious views of one of the most fluent neighbours of ancient Israel. Asharidu (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "In the ancient world of the Persian Empire, as monotheistic strains of thought were gaining steam, from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, worship of inanimate idols of wood and metal was being rejected in favor of the one living God. In the Levant the idols were called "ba'als", each of which represented a local spirit-deity or "demon". Worship of all such spirits was rejected as immoral, and many were in fact considered malevolent and dangerous." is blatantly biased against non-abrahamic religions and pushes modern fundamentalist Christian/Jewish perspective and ideology that seek to portray (other) ancient religions as backwards and ultimately worthless, as if the Jewish deity Yhvh being "the living God" were a scientific fact. Such wording is unacceptable for any encyclopedia. And after all, praying at a Christian cross or crucifix can equally be considered "worship of inanimate idols of wood and metal". Cush (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the paragraph, Cush. Asharidu (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, I'm a bit shocked at the old wording. Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Til Eulenspiegel was the only person who dared to support the old variant of the article and moreover, he labeled my compromise variant ('worship of pagan deities was being rejected in favor of the cult of Yahweh') as POV, though it was absolutely neutral. I guess this fact might have a simple explanation: Til Eulenspiegel is the man behind the Judaist agitation in this article - something the administration should pay attention for. Asharidu (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee, thanks for trying to single me out and turn this into an ad hominem argument, but I think you'll find that is strictly against our policies as well, not to mention totally beside any valid points (like all ad hominem arguments, a logical fallacy). I don't know if you are new to wikipedia, please desist from such tactics in the future, it will only get you in trouble. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, show me some understanding or keep silent about logic. I didn't try to single you out, I only noted two simple facts: when we edited the article you 'were the only person who dared to support the old variant of the article' and you 'labeled my compromise variant as POV'. I thought that the old variant of the paragraph was so obviously biased that nobody besides you would ever support it. However, I'm surprised to see that Doug Weller seems to share your opinion. Asharidu (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change your edits on the talk page, it's against guidelines. If you no longer agree with something, strike it out, if you feel you missed something out, add it in a later edit. I don't understand and am not happy with your comment about 'Judaist', as the phrase 'one living god' is found frequently in Christian books. Doug Weller (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is still the same basic theology. And it is the dismissiveness in the Judeo-Christian position (and of its adherents) that is the problem here. Cush (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've slightly improved my comments to make them sound better. 'The phrase 'one living god' is found frequently in Christian books' - one must note that in Christian books Yahweh is also called the only true God whereas Deities of other religions are called demons. Anyway, this encyclopedia isn't a suitable place for religious agitation. Asharidu (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I hoe it is clear that I didn't like the version with the 'one living god' and inanimate idols. Doug Weller (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of the `ayin

Someone should go through this article and clean up the spelling to be more internally consistent on how to represent `ayin... there's ' (APOSTROPHE), ‘ (LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK), literal ‘ (LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK again), ’ or &#8217 (RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK), ` (GRAVE ACCENT) and even ʿ (MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING).

I'd prefer either ` or ‘, since '/’ more usually represents aleph/alif than ayin when transcribing Hebrew or Arabic, and since ʿ shows up really tiny in my fonts—but for the sake of consistency, I'd take any of the alternatives as long as the article was consistent. -- pne (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the English-language Wikipedia, inserting the ayin, which doesn't even have a received orthographic symbol in English, is a pretentious little gesture, a self-conscious affectation of fastidious and scholarly accuracy, and a show of our erudition and self-regard, that has a faintly vulgar effect; it makes one cringe slightly for all of us. Baal is normal English. Ba'al is marginally okay too.--Wetman 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over the name

Is there a reason why both "Ba'al" and "Baal" are used in the same article, for apparently the same purpose? My belief was that the official name was "Ba'al" (and thus should be the article title as well). Any clarification is appreciated. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bishop picture - NPOV

NPOV problem - Picture of Baal priest. Also, photo history on the image shows peace symbol added later. Group29 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Response : I did edit my picture, because I wanted some of the occultic sybols that are related to their practices to be represented....I don't want to "expose communisim" or the current anti Bush fanatics...I just am using this rendition to relay the source of this masonic symbol, borrowed from Nero. It is neutral and justifiable. (unsigned comment added by User:DrQuinn 19:44, 5 January 2007 )

Could you please add a suitable explanation of the origin of the picture, who it is portraying, what symbols were added, and why? To me it looks like an icon of a middle ages Christian Saint who was a Bishop because of the Mitre and Bishop's Crook, to which a (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Peace symbol, Spiral, and Trefoil have been added out of context of the original subject. Not to mention how this might tie together in the article. Thanks Group29 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DrQuinn/Melchizedekjesus, Some web surfing reveals that there is a definite non-neutral bias in the picture. Also, that the black and white picture may actually be Dagon or a priest of Dagon, which even in the article is somewhat separated from the main subject. That picture should probably be removed from here and put in the Dagon article. It would appear that a connection is being drawn between the Mitre of a Bishop and the Fish headdress of the Dagon priest. The artist's rendition of the bishop with symbols should be removed. You should take up that discussion in the Talk:Mitre or Talk:Dagon page. Group29 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The priest looks more like a Led Zeppelin fan than a "priest in the time of Jezebel". Your fantasy-based photoshop is not only poorly executed, but an exercise in fiction. DELETE DELETE DELETE! (unsigned comment from 69.235.0.1 added 00:04, 7 January 2007 )

I removed the NPOV template Group29 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen sources that say the peace symbol origionally stood for destruction... the 'trinity symbol' can either be christian, or could mean 666 or a different trinity altogether (wingedsundisk/whatnot) and the masons like to use 'g' alot in symbols that represent their ownership/affiliation.. which stands for 'generative principle' the top of the staff, and the circle (is a g in there if you flip it backwards..) always look to context in symbols.. i dont think there's enough to 100% place it as a symbol of masonry/whatnot.. but i'd be about 50% leaning towards it. masons throw 'g's on everything - the gFord motor company is the best example. knights templar like 13's (budweiser cap logo) - dont believe that this is satan's world? checkout symbology yo ;) - jbk

when it comes to symbols - look to what the author meant.

Not a genuine alternative

I moved this antiquated text here: "An alternate interpretation is that this was a sun god. Sacrifices would be left in the sun, and eventually teem with flies and maggots. At time this seemed to be a miraculous manifestation of spontaneous generation. Thus, the flies would be something like avatars or servants of the sun god." Baal is not a sungod, for a start: the rest is personal fantasy. --Wetman 15:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

X86bsdunix 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Baal in Arabic

Can I ask why does the article have an Arabic spelling as well? The people which worshiped the Baal were mainly of Akkadian origin, not an Arabic.--Gilisa 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And? Cush (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't anymore. The Arabic spelling is utterly irrelevant. Ba`al was an Canaanite god...the Hebrew is relevant since it is not only a Northwest Semitic language, but it's also the language by which the name has come into English, via Greek and, later, Latin. While there are certain to be Arabic or Muslim documents that discuss Ba`al, there are also Russian and Avestani documents that do as well...and the spelling of Ba`al in those languages is just as [ir]relevant to this article. Tomer^talk 04:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A deleted Category

Some anonymous corrector made a deletion with the following edit summary: " Took out Category:Names of God in Judaism because Baal isn't the same god as Yahweh." It will occur to many, however, that Baal is precisely the same title as Adonai. --Wetman (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, as in Baal-berith "Lord of the Covenant", which is in fact Yhvh. Cush (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To say Baal is a name of God in Judaism is intellectual dishonesty...to back that claim up by confusing the name of a deity with the use of the word "ba`al" as a title, is shoddy scholarship at best, bizarre agenda-pushing at worst. Tomer^talk 04:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

?? The temple of Baal Berith at Shechem was a temple to the Hebrew god in the spot where Abraham had built his altar many years earlier to honor his covenant with his god regarding the possession of the land of Canaan (hence "Lord of the Covenant"), which is why Joshua erected the standing stone there. What is the problem with that? That the word "Lord" can be used for any deity, even Yhvh? Or rather that non-Israelite Hebrews (subsumed into the collective term "Canaanites") still dwelt in the "promised land" when the Israelites came there and still worshiped Abraham's deity? Cush (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither. You're arguing against a bunch of strawmen. This article is about a god named "Ba`al". The fact that the name assigned to this god also means "lord" in Hebrew does not mean the title can, in responsible scholarship, be conflated with the god, which is what you seem to be arguing this article should do. In fact, the entire section "Ba'al in Judaism is ridiculous, since it never discusses the god Ba'al, which Jewish texts have discussed, but, with no context whatsoever, plops in a bunch of irrelevant Hebrew phrases, none of which have anything to do with the subject of the article, and then lamely argues "these should suffice to show the range of the words" (talk about POV-pushing OR!)... Tomer^talk 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia entry: [1]. Seems to me that this is an imposible category. Where is the agreement as to when 'Judaism' began for instance that is used for this category? Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term by contemporary moralists

It is fairly common for moralists to use the term Baal for many things that go beyond the accepted canons of social and religious conservatism. For instance, in one publication, abortion is likened to child sacrifice, while deep ecology is compared to earth worship and sexual liberation is put into the same category as the ancient fertility and prosperity orgies. [2] ADM (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dios <-> God analogy

Just a quick scribble: The analogy

> A contemporary example of this would be God in English and Dios in Spanish.

is a bit off if I understood the article corrrectly, since the _name_ of god is different amongst languages, not his title. So Ba'al stands to God and "Hadad vs Melqart" is more comparable to Jehova, and maybe different transliterations lke Jahwee.

88.159.74.100 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)