Talk:Yahweh/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Merge

See Talk:Yahweh (Canaanite deity) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the validity of the Shasu of Yhw connection has been contested

A cursory search through JSTOR this morning on the subject of the Tetragrammaton recorded in Egyptian led me to the following sources suggesting the identification of the Soleb inscription's YHW with YHWH:

• Avner, review of LaRoccaPitts' "Of Wood and Stone," 2006.
• Goedike, The Tetragram in Egyptian, 1994.
• Gorg, Jahwe, Ein Toponym? 2000.
• Hess, The Divine Name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age Sources, 1991.
• Mettinger, The Elusive Essence, YHWH, El, and Baal and the Distinctiveness of Israel's Faith, 1990.
• Nakhai, Israel on the Horizon, the Iron I Settlement of the Galilee, 2003.
• Raskovich, You Shall Have no Other Gods Besides Me: A Legal-Economic Analysis of the Rise of Yahweh, 1996.
• Weinfeld, The Tribal League at Sinai, 1987.

And the following source calling the position merely inconclusive:

• Hasel, Merneptah's Inscription and Reliefs and the Origins of Israel, 2003.

Since Avner(2006) presents the identification as uncontested fact, I think it's fair to say this represents the present state of opinion on the Soleb inscription. I would be happy to add any mention to more recent articles actively disputing this thesis, but any blanket removal is obviously unwarranted. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The validity of the Shasu of YHW has not been contested: what's been contested is the quality of your writing. PiCo (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not according to your edit summary. Beyond which, you're free to edit anything you think could be written better, and I didn't write that paragraph to begin with; I merged it from Shasu. Thanatosimii (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Banned the use ... in vernacular worship since 2008"

This sentence sort of mischaracterizes the situation in the Catholic Church. The facts are that the official liturgical books have never, ever used this rendering of the Tetragrammaton in their texts. The only parts affected by the 2008 decree were certain local prayers and some popular songs which had been composed by third parties and not by the Church. The decree did not mark the start of a ban by any means, but merely reaffirmed the reality that the name was never to be used in continuity with its tradition as unpronounceable. This has always been the position of the apostolic Churches. The real genesis of the 2008 ruling is the document Liturgiam Authenticam which is the core instruction for new vernacular translations of the liturgy. I am however finding some trouble tracking down the verbatim text of the Vatican decree. All I can find are news reports in secondary sources. I am not sure if they go into this detail so I do not want to introduce WP:OR in this article, but as it stands, it is inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to Aronzak (talk · contribs) for adding the reference and clarifying. I have added some material which I feel is well-supported and verifiable about the history of this, and I have cleaned up the timeline so it is not out of order. I hope this section now accurately represents the situation as it was. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries Elizium23 (talk · contribs), and thanks for adding the link to Liturgiam Authenticam. It's interesting that early Christian sources seem to have used the tetragrammaton in Hebrew versions of the OT, and used Kyrios in the NT, leading to the old Jerusalem Bible using "Lord" in NT passages quoting OT passages as "Lord Yahweh" Eg:

NJB Is61.1 "The spirit of Lord Yahweh is on me for Yahweh has anointed me. He has sent me to bring the news to the afflicted, to soothe the broken-hearted"

NJB Mk4.18 "The spirit of the Lord is on me, for he has anointed me to bring the good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives, sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free."

I've added a link to the article Septuagint manuscripts that suggests that the Tetragrammaton was substituted for Kyrios in some versions of the LXX. There's a longer article Tetragrammaton in the New Testament that describes the inconsistency of tetragrammaton use in OT and NT, but mostly relies on JW sources, as the JWs justify using the name 'Jehovah' in the NT claiming that no NT manuscripts contain the tetragrammaton, but critics of JWs [criticise this http://jehovah.net.au/jehovah.html]. If anyone can find a reliable and verifiable source for NT use of the tetragrammaton it could help this article. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 September 2013

This page has many inaccuracies. This page talks about Jews, who were never called the Cult of Yahweh. Yahweh is a transliteration of a name for G-d, the true pronunciation of which has been lost over time. Jews were also never polytheistic. G-d never had a consort, Asherah is not a Jewish god, and there were not seventy children. In fact, Jews have always believed that there were no divine beings other than G-d. The seventy names that this article refers to as G-d's children are actually different names for G-d. Jews believe that G-d has so many attributes that one name is not sufficient. They are all names of the same entity, like nicknames (you can have more than one without being more than one person). (http://www.thehealinggift.com/chart/)

However, the names that were used as examples in this article are not names of G-d or even Hebrew. Some were members of a pantheon, but it was a polytheistic, Canaanite, pagan pantheon that didn't include the G-d that is worshipped by the Jews. The Jews did not believe in these gods and thought they were false. Jews would refer to the G-d they believed in as "better than any god" to refer to the fact that their G-d was the only G-d, and no other gods should be believed in. For example of the Canaanite non-Jewish gods mentioned in this article, Astarte was a god who had a cult that was looked upon contemptuously by Hebrews (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39661/Astarte); Resheph is not mentioned in the Bible as a god (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_16653.html); Shapshu was Phoenician (http://www.thaliatook.com/OGOD/shapash.html); etc. The only accurate examples were Yahweh and El. Baal was a Canaanite "god" who was worshipped by polytheists while Israelite Hebrews were sharing the land with them. In a Jewish story (the only time Baal is mentioned in Judaism), a Jewish prophet, Elijah, challenges a Canaanite priest to a contest, in which he disproved Baal's existence and simultaneously proved the Jewish G-d's existence. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&version=NIV)

There were so many inaccuracies in this page that practically nothing in it is true. This page should either be very heavily edited by someone who has multiple real sources, or deleted. DFarmAdventurers (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of your assertion are flat out wrong. See the following quote Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— Prof. Dr. Herbert Niehr, Tübingen University, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011

Niehr's statement is about Jews having been monotheists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DFA, this article is written to describe Yahweh as he was understood or worshiped by every party at all points of history. It's hardly deniable that various parties understood Yahweh in a polytheistic context. Had this not been true, than the monolatrist Yahwist prophets would never have written half of the Jewish prophetic works condemning these parties for idolatry. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with edit. This page is ridiculous - Yahweh is a word not used at all in Judaism and somewhat impossible to say or write in Hebrew, it is certainly not the word claimed in this article, and Adonai is spelt very differently. This has no business being filed under a Jewish subheading or being associated with Judaism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:31D6:1900:D098:138F:B302:40F4 (talk • contribs)

Read WP:VER and WP:NOR. Bible scholars use the name Yahweh, so Yahweh it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yahweh in contrast to polytheism

This article completely unacademically equates Yahweh as "a god" as if it were in a universe of various polytheistic religions. Should one approach religious beliefs even as a "myth" one must at least respect that, in the perspective of this particular "myth" and the religions that believe in this "god", there really aren't "gods", there is just "to be" (or "I Am"), and meanwhile believers of Yahweh have struggled to reconcile an understanding of this all-encompassing intelligence among people who believed in their "gods". This is why there is reference to "gods" in various ancient texts--they are "gods" recognized by Yahweh-believers as myths and idols. In the religions that recognize Yahweh (Judaism and Christianity), there are powerful spiritual beings--demigods at best--but these religions have never recognized them as "gods". Essentially, in the universe--mythical universe or not--of Yahweh, it is incompatible academics to identify Yahweh as "a god", as this one God is not "a being" (as in something that is measurably powerful, big, etc) but is actually calls Himself "to be". That is actually the meaning behind the name "Yahweh"--"to be", or "I Am". The name infers a unique role of this deity, that the deity inherently not only created everything but indeed contains everything (and everyone) that exists, and as such is not something to point at as an external object of interest (as with any polytheistic "god") but as the single one reason and substance behind everyone and everything. The critical difference here is that it is an acute deviation of not only theology but of philosophy and perception of the universe. The name of Yahweh ("to be" / "I Am") uniquely expresses this concept of containment of the universe within itself. As such, "Yahweh, which means 'to be', or 'I Am'", belongs in the very first sentence of this article.

Furthermore, the name and signficance of Yahweh is not only an ancient and forgotten supposed "myth" but remains at the core of modern-day Judeo-Christian societies. The role of Wikipedia is to provide insight to the meaning of a word in relation to the present-day understanding and relevance to modern society *before* delving into whatever academic background whatever authors might have found from whatever school of thought regarding whatever ancient society that the author hopes would soon be forgotten. Jon (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"god" as a common noun is NOT to be capitalized - this is not a work of theology!

‎Thanatosimii, I see that you are still engaged in pushing your own particular orthodox theological viewpoint here. You have been warned numerous times that you are acting in direct violation of several important Wikipedia policies, and obviously you do not care. Consensus in the discussions which followed was firmly against your rather free interpretations of various policies. You have now once again improperly reverted corrections. I include here the pertinent section of policy for your review:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents

"Proper names and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to important religious figures, such as Muhammad, by terms such as the Prophet. Common nouns not used as titles should not be capitalized: the Norse gods, personal god. In a biblical context, God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, and prophet is generally not capitalized.

Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. Nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, are not capitalized." [emphasis mine]

The following section of this article illustrates the main thrust of your unproductive activities here:

"Over time Yahwism became increasingly intolerant of rivals, and the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as God of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses. With the work of Second Isaiah (the theoretical author of the second part of the Book of Isaiah) towards the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and true God of all the world." [emphasis mine]

These incorrectly-capitalized "gods" are absolutely NOT titles, and are clearly used in a historical context.

I urge all editors to fully read through the attached archives.

Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. In the paragraph quoted, clearly the text refers to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. Unless you're suggesting that the Jewish scribes suggested that Yahweh was some other religion's deity. Thanatosimii (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Yahweh is God" should be capitalized, but "Yahweh is a god" and "Yahweh is the god of..." shouldn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there precedent to your knowledge in any major MOS of making that kind of differentiation? "Yahweh is the god of storms" or "Yahweh is the god of war" or something to that effect would be an example of a common noun, but in the two instances in question, "God" is being used in its monotheistic sense, with the modifiers being further articulations of monotheism. It strikes me as a little odd that modifiers which semantically indicate that we aren't talking about a god in a common noun sense, but about God the singular deity, would syntactically indicate that we are using god as a common noun. My working definition for common noun (admittedly taken from Wikipedia itself) is a non-unique instance of a class, which "God of the entire world" is not. Cf. the capitalization of "City" in "City of London"Thanatosimii (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are twisting words and definitions to suit your purpose! In the two examples I gave, "god" is obviously used as a common noun and not part of a title. Heavenlyblue (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue, if your sole tactic in interacting with me is to be as abrasive as possible to make me want to just stop participating in the project, well, you're succeeding. I can only hope better editors recognize how devoid of value your comments are when you choose not to interact with anything I actually write, but with what you've decided my sinister true motives are. The specious attack on my intellectual honesty, alleging that merely by disagreeing with you I must also ascribe to positions X, Y, Z, and whatever else, makes no difference to the actual debate we're having - even if I did ascribe to any of these views, that doesn't affect a debate on MOS. Have you even thought through the ramifications of the accusations you're making? If this were a work of theology, if "God" isn't a proper noun, I hope you do realize it still couldn't be capitalized, yes?

Doug, your opinion carries great weight in my book, but I wonder if you could flush that out a little. Is there a particular reason you wouldn't take "God of the entire universe" as a unique instance of a class, or do you object to my concept of noun-commonality? I'll grant that "god of" almost invariably has to be a common noun, but only because modifiers of any type, appended to a word, are typically used to distinguish between which of many members of a class to which we refer. It's a little different here. If "God of the entire universe" is not conceived of as a reference to something akin to a Platonic ideal, a singular uniqueness that doesn't come in various instances, then how does this even work as an expression of a monotheistic sentiment? Thanatosimii (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Would you disgraee with the (inaccurate) statement "Zeus was seen as god of the entire universe but Mars was the god of Mars being written with a lower case 'g'? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in the cases mentioned god is a common noun, as it is qualified and in a historical context, not as part of a title. So it should not be capitalised. BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This can be difficult with phrases like "G/god of Israel", which could be either a title or a descriptive phrase. Here, though, they're clearly descriptive. — kwami (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be a highly borderline case in my book, as I admit the subject of this debate itself is. If a particular hypothetical sect began arguing that Zeus was simply God of the entire universe in a monotheistic sense, I would keep that capitalized. I have a vague recollection that some of the ancient philosophers did start moving in a monotheistic direction with Zeus so far as to be accused of atheism by denial of the other gods, so I could see a justifiable context wherein the sentence should use "God." In another context, wherein the rest of the pantheon is not actually being crowded out of their own godhood by Zeus's hypothetical aggrandizement, and Zeus is still just a god - an important god, but not the God - I would not support capitalization there.

The issue I see here is that this sentence occurs in a part of the article discussing Yahweh's transformation in the minds of his adherents from a god to God. If the same concept could be expressed by either writing "This is when Yahweh became God" or "This is when Yahweh became God of the entire universe," then we are in either case no longer making reference to Yahweh as a member of the class "god," which is required for commonality.

That said, I admit that this argument is technical, and if the body of consensus thinks I'm being pedantic, then I cede. Blue struck the capitalization because he went on a purge of what he took to be honorific capitalization, and I restored it mainly because that concept doesn't apply here, though I do also view that noun as proper. If I'm being lengthy in my defense of my edit, it's only because I feel compelled when I edit this page to carefully and precisely document my thought processes so as to defend my integrity against charges of nefarious fundamentalist conspiracies. I don't really care. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But claiming you don't care is proof that you're part of a nefarious fundamentalist conspiracy ;)

"God" is no more a proper noun than "Lord" is. In this case the word wasn't being used as a title, though it can be a bit jarring to see it in l.c. for those of us used to honorific capitalization. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And the most recent attempt seems to have been to capitalize almost all mentions of the word, eg "The origins of the God" (the edit was reverted). Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no way to justify "national God" or "origin of the God." Final note: the phrase "not a title" is being invoked a lot in this particular discussion, and I'd like to point out that that never had anything to do with my original argument. The MOS states that we capitalize titles, but it also separately states that we capitalize God when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. Part of this article is going to discuss the transition points wherein various sects of Iron Age Israelite religion began to conceive of Yahweh not as a god but as God, and when Yahweh is on the cusp of Godhood, whether or not we're talking about the Judeo-Christian deity is going to be perhaps a little more blurry than some here are expecting. Simply because an instance of "God" comes with modifiers will not preclude it from referencing Judeo-Christian monotheism. It seems that we're taking the cut-and-dry approach taught in primary school wherein modifiers make the difference between properness and commonality, cf. "to Grandmother's house" vs. "to my grandmother's house." That's fine only as long as we're talking about a class of things that comes in non-unique instances. Any expression of classical monotheism has at its basis a denial that God is a member of the class god, thus any expression of a monotheistic sentiment which ascribes to God a lower-case godhood strikes me as self-contradictory. I would hope we can at least come to an agreement that "God is the god of..." comes unnervingly close to "A = !A."

In its present form, especially after the recent merge, we have a lot of abrupt transitions, redundant material, and muddled, vaguely self-contradictory phrasing that is a bigger concern for me, but I do want to make sure we're on the same page here. As long as this is the argument you're rejecting, then I've said my peace. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's exactly like "Grandmother", and unique in the same way. "God is the god of..." is just bad style, because it uses the same word for different meanings. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There can logically be multiple grandmothers. There can't logically be multiple monotheistic deities. Thanatosimii (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In a family there may be only one grandmother. Or take a title of office like "mayor": In a town there is only one mayor, who people may address simply as "Mayor". In monotheism, people still routinely speak of other deities. Either way it's equivalent. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A grandmother is a member of a class of being that comes in instances. According to monotheists, God is not a member of any class of being having instances. When monotheists refer to other deities, they aren't referring to instances of the same class as God. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But what difference does that make? The word does not refer to a class of one, and it's the word we're talking about. "Secretary General of the United Nations" is a class of one, but that does not make it a proper noun. It's capitalized because it's a title. "Nobel Peace Prize winners of 1903" is also a class of one, but we don't capitalize it because it's not a title. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your examples are phrases, not nouns, and thus can't be proper nouns.

I think at this point you need to explain why it is "God" is ever capitalized, being that it neither falls into your definition of a proper noun nor is a title. I've also given my working definition of common noun as a non-unique instance of a class, which excludes God due to the principles of classic monotheism. If you want to argue that God isn't a proper noun, I'd like to know what your distinction is. Thanatosimii (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mayor" is a noun.

Easy. "God" is a title. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Mayor" also wasn't one of your most recent examples. That example is a common noun because it's a class of things coming in instances.

How does "God" constitute a title? Thanatosimii (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"...if your sole tactic in interacting with me is to be as abrasive as possible..."

Thank you, Thanatosimii. I find your behaviour and manner abrasive, too. Incidentally, the term "tactics" would be better applied to your own actions here; I have simply spoken plainly, to insist upon a fair and even application of the rules. You accuse me of being argumentative, but you yourself are adept at filling many pages with lengthy, convoluted grammatical and philosophical argument, much of which, in the end, I find trivial, and which always seems to have as its endpoint the injection of as many capital-g "Gods" as possible into the text of this article, and the rather blatant promotion of a specific orthodox religious viewpoint. There are many religious websites where you can do these things freely, but Wikipedia is not one of them.

My aim here, however, has not been to waste my time arguing with you, but rather to remedy the religious bias with which this article was, and to some degree still is, plagued.

I started this discussion by pointing out that the rules concerning common and proper nouns were being routinely bent and broken in this particular article, and by demonstrating, with multiple examples from Wikipedia articles on other gods that the particular god in this article - Yahweh - was getting, quite blatantly, special treatment, in clear violation of numerous Wikipedia policies and principles.

These policies have been repeatedly and specifically pointed out to you, and yet you seem perpetually to be engaged in trying to argue your way around them.

Once again, here are the pertinent Wikipedia guidelines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines_and_their_adherents

And for those editors interested, some of the previous (archived) discussions concerning bias and terminology:

Why is "god" rendered as "God" in the lede? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh/Archive_6#Why_is_.22god.22_rendered_as_.22God.22_in_the_lede.3F

capitalization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh/Archive_6#capitalization

yet more underhanded attempts to change "god" to "God": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh/Archive_6#yet_more_underhanded_attempts_to_change_.22god.22_to_.22God.22

POV issues due to undue weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh/Archive_6#POV_issues_due_to_undue_weight

The god of Israel or the God of Israel?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh/Archive_6#The_god_of_Israel_or_the_God_of_Israel.3F

And, of course, the current discussion, from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#.22god.22_as_a_common_noun_is_NOT_to_be_capitalized_-_this_is_not_a_work_of_theology.21

Heavenlyblue (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm dropping out of this particular discussion. Being that you've already decided I'm devious and nefarious (and "religious" to boot, despite the fact I've never made any comments to you indicating I have any religious beliefs at all), I'm not going to be able to say anything you'll take in good faith. Thanatosimii (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

1) This has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Those are your own private business, and of no concern to me. My criticisms have dealt exclusively with your conduct here.

2) You accuse me of bad faith? Anyone who believes that should simply peruse your edit history on this page and have a good read through the Talk Page archives. I've always stated my positions clearly, but it seems to me that you have a well-documented history on this page of reverts and changes against consensus and policy. Personally, I find that sneaky. And your changes always seem to follow that same pattern that I've described clearly enough, I think - reinforcing traditional religious orthodoxy, attempting to excessively narrow the discussion, and denigrating other points of view that you seem to find non-traditional, 'minority', 'radical', or just plain suspiciously modern.

3) If it has been your intention here to conceal your religious beliefs, I'm going to say that you've done a very poor job of it.

4) You've used a half-dozen or so words for yourself, recently, that I have never used. I'm wondering if I should start taking your word for it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(Break for length)

• Comment - English grammars that cover the subject say to capitalize monotheistic Jewish/Christian/Zoroastrian/Islamic/Sikh "God". I'm not aware, or have not yet seen, a Cambridge/Oxford type grammar which says write the Jewish god as "god". Approximately along the same lines as English capitalizes Sun Wednesday Earth. Otherwise we'd use the definite article "the god created the earth", not "God created Earth" In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We were not debating if God should be capitalized. As I said above, "Yahweh is God" should be capitalized, but "Yahweh is a god" and "Yahweh is the god of..." shouldn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of words about what should be capitalized, but no one cares that the article does not even approach a neutral point of view? 184.18.45.118 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The religious neutral point of view is defined at WP:RNPOV. Please state whereupon this article violates the policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also mind that this article is about a god of the ancient Hebrews, there is another article for God in its contemporary meaning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You should quote some mainstream scholars (neither fundamentalist, nor very conservative evangelicals) who believe that it is false that the Hebrews were initially polytheistic and Yahweh was a god among many other gods, a god who later became God. Karen Armstrong's A History of God would be an introduction to the mainstream scholarship about Yahweh for those who did not yet read any historical criticism.

I’m not saying anyone has to like it or agree with it. I’m only saying historical criticism isn’t dead or dying. Ask anyone who has taken Bible classes or earned a degree in Bible from a university.

— Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship

So, if this is what is taught about Yahweh in any major US university, this should be Wikipedia's own view, it is no violation of a neutral point of view, see WP:ABIAS for detalis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

YHWH is not thé name of any god - by Elias Bouez of Lebanon

As an oriental , I have to explain : in Exodus, YHWH is originnally written with a Semitic WAW which is equal , not to a single latin V or W but to a double W . So you have to pronounce it : YAHOOWEH . This word is not a name , it is the tird tense of : I am ( Ehyeh) . As the god of Moses was dictating to him what to say reporting what he was hearing from him , he gave him the " ehyeh " at the tird tense , "Yahooweh " . Reporting the god message , Moses could not say :" I am " but: " he is " . Starting from this evidence all what it is explained about YHWH as a name of god is wrong . Next to misunderstanding it as a name of god , it was added to texts everywhere god of ancestors was mentioned . I am sorry to say it , but it is necessary to close such so long talks . God don't need any name . According to Exodus text we can put : Yahooweh and ehyeh together , so we will have : The one who is . That is what have been done in Arabic Coran : Allah resume the arabic sentence : Al Lazi Houa , the one who is . Excuse me I am hurting some inherited traditions , but the evidence is there . Elias Bouez from Lebanon --178.135.77.51 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use or accept original research. Please see WP:RS for the kinds of sources we accept. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

N.B. I am referring to the Semitic Tetragramaton as a source , and all what is said about it before can be considered as other sources . Because , since the very beginning , translating the Semitic WAW in a single Latin V or W, generated many different researches , this explanation i am proposing can be one of them . Wp. Need big well nowned names but now in this era , your grand child can give you more than big names . I am not a small name .--178.135.77.51 (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)E.B

You need to cite a book written by a scholar or an article in an academic journal, or Wikipedia does not care. You are not using the tetragramaton as a source, you are saying things about the tetragramaton without a source.

Wikipedia does not care about "big names." If you are not citing a scholarly book or academic journal, your opinion does not matter here.

We do not accept original proposals, because we do not use original research. We are not a forum for general discussion of topics. Either cite a source or this thread will be closed. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In Phoenician

According to Princeton.edu and the Online Phoenician Dictionary the word 𐤀𐤋 is related to El, not Yahweh. I will remove it from the lead section. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC on replacement of Yahweh with YHWH

At Talk:Israelites#RFC: :Should "God" and "Yahweh" be replaced by "YHWH"? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Editor who created the problem topic banned. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yahweh the volcano god

Let's just let this lie dormant

I didn't know you weren't supposed to sign in the articles. Sorry. I swear to god I shall not do it again. Why is it that the section cannot be entitled 'Yahweh as a volcano god' seeing as the only subject within the section is about Yahweh being a volcano god? It appears writing Yahweh and volcano in the same space is upsetting for some people. I started this section purely to cover the subject of Yahweh being a volcano god so why is it entitled 'Fringe'. That is blatant prejudice, sanitization and censorship. It is a section purely for volcano god ideas so it should have a title that fits. Also, why is it that the person who edited my contribution twisted the facts around so that the con was before the pro? Isn't it correct to start an argument with the pro and follow it with the con? If it is twisted around then that is because the person who made that edit doesn't believe in this idea and wants his idea to be first followed by my idea, which is contrary to normal procedure. Why has Professor Colin Humphries been edited out? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)) Ian.Thomson has accused me of putting my personal opinions into the article when I have done no such thing. I have added quotes and titles of books and a paper. Where was the personal opinion? Please don't shoot the messenger. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)) You are new here and don't understand how Wikipedia place works. Starting out by attacking other editors is unwise. Please delete the attacks on other editors from your remarks. I for one am not going to reply to the substance of what you are saying as long as those accusations are mixed in. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC) You added material that did not outright discuss the role of Yahweh as a volcano god. If a source doesn't say something, the source does not justify a statement. Assume good faith from other editors, or we'll have to assume that you're here with an axe to grind (which, given your name and singular focus...). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Quoting Ian.thomson from my talk page "If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yahweh, you may be blocked from editing. Also, quit signing in article space, it's just plain trashy. Your contributions will be noted in the article history. And finally, you've been reverted by multiple editors, please justify your differences on the article's talk page." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC) He's telling me to take the discussion to this page so here we I am discussing it. He's accused me of 'adding personal analysis' when I've done no such thing. I would be grateful if someone would quote me on that. I don't have an axe to grind but a point to make and I believe Wikipedia is not censored and therefore my point should have a place here given it is backed up by several sources. Neither of you have answered my questions regarding the unfit title of the section and the reversal of points from pro-con to con-pro. I would like to assume good faith but as these things are unfair it is very hard to do so. Shall I correct that title and put the points in order because right now the order is twisting the section to fit a prejudicial view and the title is blatant censorship? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)) I will say just one more time. You appear to be new and not to understand how things work. Instead of trying to learn, you are making accusations about things you do not understand. Again, please strike your comments, and please ask some questions about why people are objecting to your edits, so you can understand what the problems are. You are treating this as though it is personal, and that is not what is going on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Strike what comments? What have I said that is untrue? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Things are most productive when we talk about content, not each other. Please strike the following from your remarks above. "It appears writing Yahweh and volcano in the same space is upsetting for some people. " "That is blatant prejudice, sanitization and censorship" and now we can add "Shall I correct that title and put the points in order because right now the order is twisting the section to fit a prejudicial view and the title is blatant censorship? " Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Do you not think this is a little silly? I added a section for ideas on Yahweh being a volcano. Someone changes the title to 'Alternative Theories'. That is censorship as it eliminates 'Yahweh - volcano god'. I do not have to apologise for pointing that out. It's a fact. It was censored. I want the section on Yahweh being a volcano god to have the title 'Yahweh as a volcano god'. Why is that a problem? Why does this section deserve the title 'alternative'? Using that term is derogatory. You might as well call it 'The Bin'. I might be new around here but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia articles should not show preferential treatment or, conversely, discriminatory treatment dependent on the popularity of ideas. Is that not correct? Is Wikipedia a popularity contest? The most popular views get placed at the top of articles and the least popular views get incorrectly titled and shoved at the bottom in a very abbreviated way? That is what has happened to my section. Hacked to bits, shoved at the back and labeled wrongly. That is unfair. I would like you to stop being so petty and be honest about this. The section deserves to be titled correctly and it deserves to have the pros before the cons. Does that sound fair to you? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Comment - this is a fairly major article. Oh My Volcano, on the basis of your edits so far suggest you make no further edits to it. If you have WP:RS which say something which you want in the article then present them, with full text and ISBN, and other editors will decide whether it is a beneficial addition. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC) What you mean is this is a heavily loaded article and this section could upset the apple cart. That is one of the reasons why things are censored...to avoid upset. Are you happy to have a section incorrectly titled and for the pros to go after the cons? Is that acceptable at Wikipedia? Where does it say in the rules that fringe theories should be incorrectly titled? Where does it condone the twisting of points to present a different impression despite doing so leaving the points in a back-to-front order? Me upsetting you all with my insistence should have absolutely nothing to do with what is written in the article. Likewise, what impact the section has on the public should not come into the equation. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Volcano, you persist in being argumentative but you don't know what you are doing or how this place works. It is not about "pettiness" on my part; it is about you showing cluefulness. I gave you a chance to reset and you didn't take it. I am not dealing with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)I might be new around here Jydog but I know a witch-hunt when I see one. I am persistent. Every new idea needs a persistent person to protect it and push in into the public consciousness otherwise they would be beaten up and buried alive before they were ever seen. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Block? - he's evidently not listening and edit history shows WP:SPA / WP:FRINGE. This isn't a fringe blog, this is an encyclopedia an this editor as far as I can see is unwilling/unable to provide WP:RS. I pinged Dougweller on Oh My Volcano's Talk page about a block being on the horizon, coming back here I now support one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC) You ask to have someone blocked because they believe a section has been incorrectly titled and the points moved back to front? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC))It's titled 'Alternative Theories' when there's only one theory in it....the volcano theory. Why can't it be a specific section? There are lots of people who have said Yahweh was a volcano god... In the NIV Achaeological Study Bible, Mount Sinai is said to be a volcano. 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. In 'Moses and Monotheism' by Sigmund Freud, Yahweh is said to be a volcano god. In 'Mount Sinai a Volcano' by Charles Beke, Mount Sinai is said to be a volcano. In 'The Invention of God' by Bill Lauritzen, the role of volcanoes is highlighted in the establishment of 'god'. 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 Walker, Yahweh is said to have been a volcano god. In 'The Masks of God Volume 3 Occidental Mythology' by Joseph Campell, 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 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 H. 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. and many other too. Please give it its own section and please put the pros before the cons. That is only fair. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Here is the first of three pages of books which include statements or references of Yahweh being a volcano god...http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=yahweh+volcano+god&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ayahweh+volcano+god. Here is another book I've just found which links geological phenomenon with religion, which is now called Geomythology...http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acts-God-Weighing-Biblical-Natural-ebook/dp/B00KBW7MQ2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=bible+volcano+god This is a growing subject and deserves its own section without ridicule. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) I think we're all aware of Freud's idea and that is relevant for a Freud article. Otherwise, permit me to blue-link those authors so we can click through to see if any articles on some of the less recognisable names there. Now, can you please give the page number and edition year in 'The Oxford Companion to the Bible, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Page 235 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+the+Bible+yahweh+volcano&source=bl&ots=ofgQVn7_w6&sig=KJjHmHzqsaaDEzoMuO9rZ8AvzD0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mgz4U8uWCYvxaK6TgtAL&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Companion%20to%20the%20Bible%20yahweh%20volcano&f=false Page 252 is also interesting http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+the+Bible+volcano&source=bl&ots=ofgQVn71p7&sig=1uG3DOkf-9sLAAhJ30KVKPn-nZs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gA34U5O0N8jkaML0gogP&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Companion%20to%20the%20Bible%20volcano&f=false(Oh My Volcano (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Also page 173 (Oh My Volcano (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) (edit conflict) Thanks, I already found it actually but good to confirm you're looking at the same article by William Meissner on Freud and the Bible saying Freud's ideas on Moses were "fantasy", and you are not able to distinguish between a scholar saying those ideas are "fantasy", and an actual modern Biblical scholar presenting ideas in favor of such ideas. At this point I see no alternative to requesting a block. Even if you'd agree to not actually edit related articles the above Talk is still time wasting for serious editors. There's enough disruption already to this and similar pages without this extra activity on the Watchlist. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms by Othmar Keel (ISBN: 9781575060149) page 218 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fy4B1iMg33YC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=book+yahweh+volcano&source=bl&ots=YicgUbMXCs&sig=327KZHI2XvZDpRfwZYB7TV7dYdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6xD4U57NAZXhaqiAgbgP&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=book%20yahweh%20volcano&f=false (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) The NIV study noting that Sinai might have been a volcano is not the same as them saying that Yahweh was a volcano god. The Urantia Book is not an academic source. Freud's area of expertise is sleeping with one's mother, not history. Beke later recanted his ideas, even in the very source you cited! To continue to bring that up as if it's proof that your pet theory is WP:THETRUTH is either dishonest or incompetent. Lauritzen fails WP:RS for being self published. Additionally, he makes the downright stupid claim that Java derives from Jehovah, nevermind the Javanese is an Austronesian language, not an Afro-Asiatic one. Harwood is a polemicist, not a historian. Acharya S is a conspiracy theorist whose career is based on (even other proponents of the Christ Myth theory think that Acharya S is hardly academic). Walker's encyclopedia opens with a polemic about Goddess worship, and is more a work of Misandry than scholarship. It is WP:FRINGE and fails WP:RS for anything other than its own views. Campbell is interesting for his ideas on storytelling, but not on ancient history. Still, he describes Yahweh in a variety of ways, mainly as a serpent slayer. Starting on page 125 of my copy, Campbell begins to describe Freud's view, rather than saying that Yahweh was definitely historically a volcano god. He notes "Freud's theory" (in totum) "has, of course, been attacked from every side, both with learning and without." He goes on to say that he is not going to defend the views of Freud, and merely notes the previous history to comment on other topics completely unrelated to volcanos. Howard Fast is a TV writer, not a scholar. Ernst Bloch's Atheism in Christianity is a politico-theological work, not a historical work. The Oxford Companion to the Bible by Michael Coogan and Bruce M. Metzger does not say that Yahweh was a volcano god, it merely summarizes Freud's views in the article about his views. That is not an endoresment, that's merely describing his views for what they were. Gillooly is another polemicist, and repeating Freud. Paul John's work is self-published through Trafford Publishing, and fails WP:RS. Harwood is also self-published, and pushes for the Ancient astronaut hypothesis. Power's work is a polemic on psychology, not a history book, and appears to be deriving its single, half sentence, in passing claim regarding volcanos from Freud. Rice's "Freud and Moses" is obviously just repeating Freud, and the least bit of investigation reveals that it's not even advocating his views, merely documenting them. When I Assman's work, I couldn't find any mention of the world searched "volcano", but did find the exact phrase 'Neither is he a "volcanic demon," indicating that your quote is either dishonestly or incompetently taking things out of context. Looking at the only other time he the words volcanic demon appear, he is describing Freud's claims, though with the earlier quote it's quite clear that he is doing no more than describing. Gowan's Eschatology in the Old Testament does not say that Yahweh was a volcano god, but rather notes that volcanic eruptions were considered a theophany, a temporary and almost illusionary form taken by a deity to amaze their worshippers (not the deity in itself). That is not the same as saying that Yahweh was a volcano god. If Gunkel had advocated that idea, I'd definitely be finding something on it, and yet there isn't. Given the absolute failure of the rest of the citations so far, it's safer to assume that Gunkel merely described Freud's views, and (given that his stuff is published by Fortress Press) probably dismissed it. I love Philip K Dick, which is why I can generally tell which of his writings were fiction, non-fiction, and hallucinatory non-fiction. The Divine Invasion is fiction. Furthermore, Dick doesn't claim that at all, it's a fictional character's unstudied claim. @Oh My Volcano:, you need to drop the singular and fanatical focus. Learn what qualifies as a reliable source, and stick to summarizing and paraphrasing them with no addition or interpretation, and do it because you found something interesting, not because you want to preach about your downright religious belief that Yahweh had to absolutely be a volcano god. That you just look for a book that has both the words "volcano" and "Yahweh" in there and assume it proves you right is so incompetent it borders on superstitious. Last warning before I take it to the admins, knock it off. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Legends of the Earth by Vitaliano 1973.....Geomythology....linking geological phenomenon with mythology http://books.google.es/books/about/Legends_of_the_Earth.html?id=FwjgAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) If NIV is correct and Mount Sinai was a volcano, how can Yahweh be anything other than a volcano god? What other type of god lives on a volcano other than a volcano god? If Yahweh was a real god who happened to live on a volcano, does that means Pele was also a real god but who just happened to live on a volcano? (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) You cannot, in all sensible honesty, seperate the two. If Mount Sinai was a volcano then Yahweh was a volcano god. There is not other sensible conclusion. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)) Block [on next article space edit] - this User isn't listening and seems incapable of (a) distinguishing WP:RS, (b) when they find a WP:RS reading what WP:RS academic sources actually say. Enough time wasted already. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC) actually Volcano has stopped editing the article; posting walls of text on Talk is not blockable (I think). WP:SHUN is perhaps more appropriate... Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but if the Talk page keeps beeping on the Watchlist that is not much better. I think at this point you're right that WP:SHUN / Wikipedia:Deny recognition is worth trying. The link to Othmar Keel might justify a single mention of volcanic imagery in the Psalms, but the copyedit would need to be done by an editor who can keep things in perspective. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

this, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible ed. James D. G. Dunn p379, would be a better source than Keel for Psalm 18:7-8,15 resembling Exodus 19:16-18. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with including a section on Yahwist theophanies with a bit focused on volcanoes (IIRC, J theophanies also include the Burning bush, and God going around in some unspecified anthropomorphic form, such as when He - seemingly drunk - barged in on Moses and beat him up until someone tossed a foreskin at Him) (The Yahwist parts are so damn fun to read), and wouldn't mind due weight toward the totality of Freud's views (Campbell is the best citation I have near immediate access to, Rice's "Freud and Moses" would probably be better). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:, would you mind just taking a look at Talk:Moses_and_Monotheism#reception_and_significance. Is it the IP the same user? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I knew we had this problem years ago, and I looked it up. Is this the same guy as in Talk:Yahweh/Archive 5#Yahweh the Volcano God? He didn't make any article edits at that time. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Confirmed -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. If he pops up again let's SPI him. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Asherah as Yahweh's consort

I'm finding some bias here. There are portions of the article that discuss the wide range of opinions of various scholars, yet some portions of the article appear to be definitive in conclusion.

E.g. "and Asherah (who is thought by some scholars to have been his consort)" [2nd Paragraph], which is later followed by a conclusive "El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, with Asherah as his consort and Baal and other deities making up the pantheon". Is Asherah supposed to be the consort of El or Yahweh?

The original statement states 'some scholars' whereas the reference for Asherah as Yahweh's consort is only one source and one 'scholar' - Mark S. Smith(footnote reference). This appears to be biased or a generalization based one one source. Also, the article does not deal with the issue of the early historicity of Shema (Deut. 6:4) and the singular reference to God in Job (1:6). Job is thought by some to be the earliest book written in the Biblical canon.

The article also doesn't deal with the criticism or scholarly debate regarding the historicity or veracity of the Asherah consort claims. It remains to be seen whether Asherah was actually the consort of Yahweh, or simply practised by those in deviancy from the Jewish norm.

"Yahweh and Baal at first co-existed and later competed within the popular religion." This appears to be in debate. And it is best to present both points of view in order to avoid bias.

Since the account of Job(1:6,2:1) clearly discusses a one God paradigm, this could suggest that the Asherah figures were late deviations from the original religion practised by the early Israelites. It's evident in Job's account that Yahweh is God rather than one of the gods(1:6,2:1). In this view, the one God hypothesis could well predate the scribes of Isaiah. Isaiah 43-44 discuss the difficulty of Yahweh co-existing with any other God, and the estimates for Isaiah's composition are 8th BCE . Yet early in the Biblical account, Rachel safeguards idols or household gods (Genesis 31:19,34-35 cf. 35:1-4) and yet Jacob obeys Yahweh soon thereafter buries the idols. It appears that from the beginning Yahweh did not tolerate the worship of other competitors.

If Asherah is to be considered as Yahweh's consort, there must be historical evidence to support this pattern as normative rather than a syncretistical religion practised by sectors of Judaistic religion. Also, there appears to be an absence of multiple scholars who can confirm this was practised by early Judaists rather than a late(8th or 9th Century BCE - Gilmour, p.90) corruption of the religion.

Lastly, another scholar disputes the interpretation of the significant find "Kuntillet ‘Ajrud" find as representative of Yahweh and Asherah. Rather, the reference could be to the Egyptian God 'Bes' or other deities.

References. Hadley, Judith M. (June 2000). The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. pp. 26–27.

Gilmour, Garth (July 2009). "An Iron Age II pictorial inscription from Jerusalem illustrating Yahweh and Asherah". Palestine Exploration Quarterly. 141 (2): 87–103.

Meshel, Ze'ev. "Kuntillet 'Ajrud: An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border". Retrieved 29 September 2014.

As this is my first talk, if there are formatting errors, please let me know. JohnRajendra (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Read WP:OR. You don't make the call, reputed scholars do.

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— prof. Herbert Niehr, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Omri#More prominent Omride theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

""El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, with Asherah as his consort and Baal and other deities making up the pantheon". Is Asherah supposed to be the consort of El or Yahweh?" Asherah was the consort of El. That's universally accepted. Many scholars, I don't know how many . suppose that Yahweh, beginning as a statement about El ("El manifests himself"), gradually displaced El and took over his wife, since he wasn't essentially a different god. There's quite a lot written about this. (When I say that Yahweh "displaced" El and took over "his" wife, I really mean that the name Yahweh displaced the name El; and bear in mind that we're dealing with a timescale of centuries). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.132.194 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary

The summary at the top seems long. Is all of its information necessary/appropriate for the intro? KaJunl (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

seems fine to me. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What Evidence?

The article used to say: "The original pronunciation of YHWH was lost many centuries ago, but the available evidence indicates that it was in all likelihood Yahweh"

If there is evidence to support such a statement then it should appear as such. On the other hand, see the paper that is in the Judaica Ukrainica that highlights the "strange combination" that goes into the "Yahweh" pronunciation and the fact that the scholarly studies point away from the pronunciation as "Yahweh." [1] Pg 17 footnote 59: "The form Yahweh that is singled as the current communis opinio is a scholarly reconstruction that is described as “a strange combination of old and late elements” (Barton Payne, “hāwâ: Yahweh,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol.1, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980/2003), p. 210). A growing number of recent studies reveal that the “currently favored” pronunciation Yahweh prevails as it is repeatedly and uncritically reproduced with virtually no definite and adequate argumentations. For example, S. M. McDonough states that “one must admit that the virtual unanimity of the cognoscention the matter counts for something” and admits honestly that “the case can hardly be considered close.” Also, “there is no direct evidence from the late Second Temple period which supports such a pronunciation” (McDonough, YHWH at Patmos, 117–29; see, also, Parke-Taylor, Yahwe,80)."

Be happy to back it up more. Johanneum (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

YHWH and El are different

Hello. Regardless of your level of faith, you cannot deny that "YHWH" and "El" are not the same word, therefore not the same deity (by default, as described in Canaanite religion). There is no such thing as equality of contradictions, taking into account Judaism has always been versatile regarding meanings, this still now does not make any sense (it is obvious "El" is a different deity, that got destroyed by YHWH later, as described in the Book of Jeremiah 10:11, therefore YHWH "acknowledges" his creation of other deities or angels and the decision to destroy them). Would you like to equate Ahura Mazda and Allah and Eloah and Yahwah and Yahwaesh and Zeus as the same? Because that's what is being done here inadvertently. You do realise that it's what the text already says, while you reverted a simple correction for the sole sake of doing it.

To quote:

"Say this to those who worship other gods: "Your so-called gods, who did not make the heavens and earth, will vanish from the earth and from under the heavens." - Jeremiah 10:11

--Vitilsky (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page guidelines and please read WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. WP is not a place for you to discuss your original research or theories. If there are secondary sources that reflect the mainstream scholarly position that the two gods were definitely distinct on this, please bring them. (I do not think there are, but am interested in seeing what you bring) Otherwise, please stop adding content about this to the article and please stop discussing it here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (make this more accurate, sorry for having been sloppy Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

Page 5, CANAANITE MYTH AND HEBREW EPIC, By Frank Moore Cross

"In this text there is a clear claim for the continuity between the religion of the Fathers and the Yahwistic faith of later Israel. At ::the same time the text, precisely in its insistence that Yahweh is to be identified with the god of the Fathers, discloses to the ::historian that the old religion and the Mosaic religion were historically distinct or, in any case, belonged to two stages in a ::historical development."

Page 90, The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, Judith Reesa Baskin

"(the mythological texts) use the title "Bull" for the chief god of the city, El. The representation of a god as a bull seems to have ::been a traditional component of Canaanite worship incorporated into Israelite religion in the northern kingdom of Israel, despite its ::strong condemnation in the Torah."

Note the strong condemnation in the Torah reference. These books can be found in Google Books, very easily and readily available. Greetings; --Vitilsky (talk) ::14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that there is a big load of literature available on this fact, as opposed to your opinion of what you think which is baseless and unfounded, as I guessed, it's a big factor to take into account other people's scholarship, regardless of anyone's opinion. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

your personal scholarship has absolutely no place in WP per WP:OR. The Cambridge dictionary doesn't say anything about Yahweh so is not useful. The Frank Cross reference is useful as he is very mainstream and he explicitly discusses Yahweh and El. What is also important is that he is careful (which is what good scholars are) and he writes that there was either historical development of a single god, or a merging of two gods. He also writes " there is a clear claim for the continuity" which means he very much acknowledges that El and Yahweh may indeed be different stages of one god. This is not reflected in the content you added, which was that El was a "a different deity" - period - with no acknowledgement that they may have been different stages of the same god or may have been two distinct gods that merged. There is little certainty in dealing with ancient history and the lack of certainty and difficulties are compounded by the fact that we are dealing with metaphysical beings.... this is not tangible like the question of whether Jericho was ever destroyed. More sources on this would be useful to flesh out the range of views and the nuances here. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, that is the point. There weren't the same god before they became one. I do sound critical but it is blasphemous to compare a pagan god to YHWH. Thank you for your understanding. --Vitilsky (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you suggest a different way to rephrase this, as to make it compatible with the scholarship provided? --Vitilsky (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

your personal feelings about blasphemy have no place in a discussion about a WP article. And you are again making a much more certain statement than can be supported; they may have been distinct and merged or they may be two stages in the development of a single god. The article is currently accurate and I do not support changing the lead. I think the Frank Cross reference could usefully be added to the discussion in the body and I will do so. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that we all have "personal" feelings, otherwise you would be considered a mad man. I am eager to say, that, the problem arose with the words "may have originated". I suggest, villeicht it's better to put "probably" as it can proven regardless of what you say. Thanks --Vitilsky (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

again please read the WP:TPG. This is not a forum, it is a place to discuss content and sources per wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Personal feelings about content have no role in WP. your last revert probably pushes you past 3RR. I suggest that you do not change this further without discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem. Please, do not revert your talk page either, or I will request a block. I am not being disruptive here, you delete talk pages. --Vitilsky (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

not responding to discussion of user Talk pages here. please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The citation in the lead does not link El with Yaweh. The citation should be changed, or the claim should be eliminated. I'm not sure this article can rely solely on authors such as Dever who have a very particular scholarly view, which is in reality, is their own theory. Dever has the theory that Yaweh was married to another goddess, which is hardly the scholarly consensus. It's not hard to find scholarly opinions which disagree with his theories. The article presents these theories as facts when these theories should instead be prefaced with "According to professor William G. Dever..." Unless there is a scholarly consensus, the wikipedia article shouldn't really express a singular viewpoint. 24.190.51.21 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Francesca Stavrakopoulou stated in a BBC documentary that it is now consensually accepted among historians that God had a wife. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Something's wrong again!

My gut feeling is that articles on religion in Wikipedia can never be trusted. Which pisses me off no end. F.ex., in the lede:

The name may have originated as an epithet of the god El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon ("El who is present, who makes himself manifest"),[1]

1 is:

The pronunciation "Yahweh" is actually a scholarly translation

...blablablabla...

Based on parallels with Amorite, another Semitic language, the Yahweh would be a causative form, meaning "the one who causes to be/creates."

Nothing about "El!" Nothing about "who is present". Misrepresentation of sources, and this is typical for religious articles.

Once there was a guy on wikipedia under the user name Jagged 85 who misused sources to invent his own fantasy history writing ... I won't go into details, but after an intense cleanup work, and a persistent cheating/I-wont-listen-attitude the Wikipedia community banned him as one of the most disruptive editors ever, sentence here WP:AN/I: JAGGED 85 BANNED. I suspect this was just an extreme example, and that there are many a jagged editor in religion inventing and reinterpreting sources to falsehood. Do the edits yourself! I'm sick and tired of all jagged ones. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is verifiable here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two theories on the origins of the god Yahweh, and I've never seen them reconciled. One is that he was an epithet of the god El - "El who is present, who makes himself manifest". The link will take you to an artlice by Meindert Dijkstra in a book edited by Bob Becking, but it's Frank Moore Cross's idea, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, which is available in Google Books. The other is that he originated from the Shasu nomads, as described in Egyptian sources - you can find that referenced all over the place. How, or even whether, these two are combined, or combinable, I do not know.PiCo (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Structure of the article - section titled "history of Yahweh worship"

I did a little editing of this section, largely cleanup of the structure, but it seems to me that the entire section is a structural anomaly - the preceding (very long) section is called History, so what does Histor of Yahweh Worship have to say that isn't properly included there?

On a slightly different subject, I don't think aniconism is covered in the article, and it should be - it was part of the development of monotheism and I guess needs to go with that. There are many good sources for this. Does anyone mind if I try to write a paaragrpah about it?PiCo (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Editor2020, Talk 03:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yahweh as a storm god or volcano god

Making the definitive statement 'Yahweh is a storm-god' in the introductory paragraph is making an unsubstantiated claim. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this and therefore a difinitive statement cannot be made. Possible types of god can be offered but 'storm' is only one possibility. Why is this the only one stated when others have been put forward, for example a volcano god? May I suggest the much fairer statement 'Yahweh is either a storm god or a volcano god'? (VolcanicBrimstone (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedia goes by WP:DUE weight. If dozens of mainstream sources say one thing, and only one or two fringe sources say a second thing, we'll go with the first thing. If we mention the second idea at all, it'll be noted that as a fringe minority position. It does not create artificial balance between two ideas if one is mainstream and the other is not.

Did you choose your username because you are here specifically to address the claim that Yahweh was a volcano god? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The definitive statement 'Yahweh is a storm-god' is not factual but presumptuous. A more factual statement would read 'Yahweh is often referred to as a storm god but also as a volcano god'. Surely that is more acceptable. http://jot.sagepub.com/content/38/4/387.abstract Joacob E.Dunn's recent paper on the subject. I chose my username because a username says a thousand words (VolcanicBrimstone (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that's artificial balance. "The Oxford History of the Biblical World" repeatedly mentions storm imagery, and doesn't mention volcanoes once. A single paper doesn't change. Think of it like a pool filled with blue paint. A single speck of yellow isn't going to turn the whole pool green. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

'mentions storm imagery' does not make Yahweh 'a storm god'. I am sure it also repeatedly mentions fire imagery too plus a mountain god imagery, smoke, balls of brimstone (which is sulfur...from volcanoes), mountains callapsing, the lake of fire, Moses meeting god in the fire......etc, etc. You can have a pool full of wind and rain but throw in one bit of fire and brimstone and a storm god is not what you've got. Using your own very sensible logic there. Now, can we agree that the statement 'Yahweh is a storm god' is a sweeping statement and not a fact and is therefore out of place in Wikipedia? The statement 'Yahweh is often referred to as a storm god but also as a volcano god' is an accurate statement. Here is another speck of brimstone in the storm pool... (VolcanicBrimstone (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

“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.” NIV Archeological Study Bible, p. 123. (VolcanicBrimstone (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

As I explained to your previous account, the idea that Sinai might have been a volcano does not make Yahweh a volcano god. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and Hawaii having lots of volcanoes does not make Pele a volcano god with long flowing golden lava....oops...hair. Moses may very well have met with a real god on the top of an erupting volcano. There's always hope! That is beside the point here though. My point is that it is not right to state 'Yahweh is a storm god' in an encyclopedia when that point is not universally or even widely believed. No academic sources were cited to back that statement up. If it was a widely believed fact then most academics in the field would state it but that is not the case at all. If you are going to say what type of nature god he may have been then you have to state what types are on the table, those including storm god and volcano god. You should either remove this statement or make it accurate by including the other possibilities because right now it is a fringe theory in itself selected lazily with little regard for actual Biblical text.. (VolcanicBrimstone (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

VolcanicBrimstone: I only just noticed this discussion. The line in the lead describing Yahweh as as storm god is from the book by Hackett cited at the end of that line. Additional descriptions of Yahweh as a storm god can be found in books by Day, Smith, Dozeman and many others. All of this is just to say that the idea is pretty well represented in the scholarly literature. On the other hand, Yahweh is also described as a volcano god, though in far fewer secondary sources - but look at the book by Keel in the bibliography, it's quite interesting on the volcano-god associations. Summarising the general debate, the idea seems to be that Yahweh was firs a warrior-god, the champion of Israe, with an attendant train of stars etc (the Heavenly Host); Baal was the storm god, but Yahweh gradually absorbed him, just as he also absorbed El the father-god. And so Yahweh ended being a god of just about everything. It's really difficult to put all this into a few sentences in our article. PiCo (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is vey easy to put this into a few sentences, as that is exactly what you have done here.Theredheifer (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify to passersby that this is very much a fringe theory. It hasn't gained any ground aside from the virtue of being called "interesting conjecture" by a few scholars. The originator of the theory actually agrees with that assessment. If any other scholars were to embrace the theory, I'd be all for a brief mention... But I don't think it's really given any consideration in the relevant fields, given that it's simply based on coincidental imagery, rather than any archaeological or textual evidence. The user who suggested it is an editor who is apparently obsessed with the theory, and has been trying to insert it into articles, even quite peripheral ones, for years; they've been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yahweh as a storm g-d, (which came from Baal) is not fringe, it is accepted academic belief, though Yahweh as volcano g-d might beTheredheifer (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about the latter "volcano god" theory. No worries. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Unique to Israel" and inclusion of YHWH

Prinsgezinde, can you explain what your concern is? I honestly don't follow. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My issue with "Unique to Israel and Judah" was simply that it seems to mispresent what it says in the source. You've changed it since then and I don't know if that was related to it, but the problem would be that an uninformed reader will believe Yahweh only played a role in Judaism, whereas the related source explained how that is highly disputed. "Southern Palestine" came up a few times. I know it's a copy from the source, I just think it doesn't accurately summarize the reference to say he/it was "unique to" Judah/Israel. But deal with that as you see fit, I'm not too bothered. Why delete the YHWH inclusion though? It's already in a note but I think it would be better to show right away. Many people look up that name Prinsgezinde (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. On "unique to Israel and Judah," unlike you I think that's what the source is saying - he does say that new evidence might turn up in the future and we should keep an open mind, but future possiblities aren't present facts. Anyway, I expanded it slightly to make the statement a little more tentative. On the explanation of YHWH as Yahweh, I was uneasy with it being so high up in the article when the article isn't about pronunciation (there's another article, YHWH, that can handle that), but I can reinsert it into the last para of the lead.PiCo (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the pronunciation does not belong in the lead.Theredheifer (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah

The rendering "Jehovah" was removed with the edit summary "never Jehovah". Yet just two paragraphs later in the lead, we say:

By early post-biblical times, the name of Yahweh had virtually ceased to be pronounced and it was replaced when reading scripture with the word Adonai, meaning Lord. Many Christian Bibles follow the Jewish custom and replace it with "the LORD".

This certainly falls into the range of "Jehovah". — kwami (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

How does that fal into the range "Jehovah"? What I understand it to be saying is that at some point in early post-Biblical times the priests stopped saying the name of their God, whatever it might have been, and started saying "Adonai" instead (when reading scripture, that is). I thnk the next sentence might be a bit confused about what Jewish Bibles do with the name - it inplies that the four letters are not used in Jewish Bibles, but I believe that they are. It's just Christian Bibles that replace YHWH with the word "Lord". I'm quite open to discussion, I didn't put that sentence there (or if I did I've forgotten), an I have no strong feelings. PiCo (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

When speaking of the god of the Jews, "Jehovah" is the traditional English rendering. Perhaps "Yahweh" is the only rendering used for the Canaanite deity, but parts of this article are about the modern concept of a Christian god. I can remove those sections as being off-topic. — kwami (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Jehovah" as a name is also something that a small but very committed groups of modern Christians consider important (Jehovah's Witnesses and the Sacred Name movement, maybe others that I don't know of - I think there's a King James Only movement whose members think this matters). "Yahweh" is the modern scholarly usage - some use that, some use YHWH. This article is about this god as he appeared in Iron Age Palestine (or Canaan if you prefer), not about his name, for which there's the articles YHWH and Jehovah. We use hyperlinks to link those articles, and that plus the brief note we have in the first line is enough, in my view.

I wouldn't call Yahweh a Canaanite god - he seems to have been worshiped only in Israel and Judah, which never thought of themselves as Canaanite (almost never - there's one celebrated line where Jeremiah tells the Israelites they're Canaanites). I don't think anything more than a few lines are about modern Christianity, but if you can point them out...

For the purposes of this article, Yahweh isn't the god of Judaism. Judaism has a very long history that begins with Iron Age Israel, but over time the religion changed. In the Iron Age the followers of Yahweh offered blood sacrifices, among other forms of sacrifice, and that was the central element of worship. It's not so in Judaism. In Iron Age Judah there was High Priest who officiated at the Temple in Jerusalem, which was the sole place of worship - that's not so either. Israel's God enforced herem, but I hope modern Jews don't. Explaining the continuities would be beyond the scope of this article, but the differences are real and great, and, I think, account for the strong antipathy some of our readers have for it. PiCo (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Samaritans tend to get short shrift, but other than that, that all sounds reasonable. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

El and Yahweh

Deuteronomy 32:8–9 is misinterpreted, El and Yahweh are just different names/attributes of the same God: "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD (Yahweh), the most high God (El), the possessor of heaven and earth..." (Genesis 14:22) I'm not sure which translation is used for the quote (Deuteronomy 32:8–9), but here is King James: "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." Some translation have "according to the number of the sons of God" but the meaning is the same - sons of Israel.--N Jordan (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your own research about the Bible is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy WP:OR. We only render mainstream scholarly views, see e.g. WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if the translation used in the article was indicated. At present the quotation stands as an assertion and "varying mss" (implied to be erroneous) are indicated to exist. Even if the verses quoted are not from a full translation of the Bible, but only a partial translation for the purposes of the work, it would be better to indicate the source. JLASish (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the source for a full explanation of what's meant. In brief, this is not talking about any translation, but various versions of the bible - the Masoretic text version, the Septuagint text, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These "various mss" aren't erroneous, they're just in disagreement. The modern version of the Masoretic text says "sons of Israel," which is what the KJV is translating. The Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls both say "sons of God", meaning sons of El Elyon. "Sons of Israel" at this point makes no sense, as is clear if you look at Deuteronomy 32 closely. It tells how El divided the peoples of the world into nations (the 70 nations of the Table of Nations) and gave each one to the care of one of his own 70 sons, with "Jacob" (Israel) placed in the care of Yahweh. The Massoretes (Jewish rabbis of the first 500 years AD who curated the bible and gave their name to the Masoretic text) didn't like the implication, so they changed it. But the Septuagint and DSS texts exist in much earlier copies, and have the original reading. To learn more about this, you can follow up in the various books in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not an "interpretation", it is a fact (about some manuscripts). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased Article

I thought that this article was biased. It talks about Yahweh entirely from the pagan god perspective, and is completely delirious from the common usage of Yahweh, which means Lord (God) or Jehovah. The article should begin from that perspective, and then may talk about Yahweh is also a name for pagan Canaanite god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

delirious? don't understand. please note that WP is a scholarly project, not a religious one. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups - As well, we believe, it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests. Our relationship and responsibility is to maintain our core principles in the name of and to serve individual users of our projects. That relationship should be maintained at all costs.

-- Aronzak (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is inevitably controversial, since it involves matters of deeply held belief. Just to clarify for the OP, who seems to want a discussion of Yahweh from a theological perspective, there probably will be something on that, when I can find it, but it will be about the theology of Yahweh in Iron Age Judah and Israel, not as seen today - Wikipedia already has plenty of articles on modern theology. (By the way, I think the article makes clear that was no Canaanite god called Yahweh).PiCo (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Every couple of years I come across this article again, and every time it surprises me. While I do understand that the author(s) intend for it to be an article on the Iron Age god and not on the god of Judaism/Christianity/etc., I question that decision, or at least question the seeming avoidance of that topic altogether in this article. I think that if we agree to stick with the current approach, there should at least be a section on this god's influence on/connection to the Jewish god - even if just from the perspective of "this god's name/characteristics/etc. are thought to be an influence on the modern-day Abrahamic god, they use his name, etc, etc." Second, I think we should have a discussion about the appropriate use of this page and try to reach a consensus - if this has already been done, can someone link to it/can we keep it on the present page? It seems to be that there is an ongoing debate about the appropriate use of this page and that primarily one person is arguing for the focus on the Iron Age god exclusively. I think most of us are open to that idea but think this article may benefit from being a bit broader. I do like the addition of the link to the disambiguation page/other related pages at the top; that's new since the last time I was here and is very helpful. -KaJunl (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I reread and I like the monotheism section. I think this gets at what I was recommending. I think some aspects of this should also be added to the intro paragraph at the top though. -KaJunl (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thought: Have we considered adding something in parentheses to the page title? That might eliminate a lot of the controversy. For example, "Yahweh (Iron Age god)" or something? -KaJunl (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I find the article to come off with a biased tone, regardless of what exactly we make the topic. It reads like a persuasive argument rather than like a neutral article. It presents evidence, which is good, but does so in a way that sounds like it's trying to convince or persuade an audience, rather just stating facts. Hard to explain - does anyone agree? Almost more like a thesis than an encyclopedia article. This is a good example: "The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the temple in Jerusalem was the most important or even sole temple of Yahweh, but this was not the case." Really, I think this is in need of a major re-write. -KaJunl (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There are articles God, God in Judaism, God in Christianity, etc., so there has to be an article about the ancient version of Yahweh. The very name Yahweh is scholarly parlance, so we use it in its most common academic usage. What matters in writing such articles are WP:RNPOV, WP:VER, WP:SOURCES. I explained it at WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Monochrome, you deleted:

• (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel).

> Sourced from Chalmers, and entirely uncontroversial.

• The phrase "meant to be" from this: The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the temple in Jerusalem was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh, but this was not the case,

> Sourced from Davies, changes the meaning by omitting the intentionality of the Deuteronomist authors.

• (A number of scholars have also drawn the conclusion that infant sacrifice, whether to the underworld deity Molech or to Yahweh himself, was a part of Israelite/Judahite religion until the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century BCE).

> Sourced from Gnuse, correctly qualified as the conclusion of "a number of scholars", deleted on no better grounds than your personal, unprofessional, opinion (as the line edit summary says ,"in my opinion...")

• Replaced a concise statement of the late beginnings of exclusive monotheism ("Pre-exilic Israel, like its neighbours, was polytheistic; the worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, but more likely with the prophet Hosea in the 8th" with something misleading in context.

> You appear not understand what your source is saying: it's saying that the bible paints a picture of Israel as monotheistic from the beginning, but this is misleading. It's not saying that ancient Israel was monotheistic at any point before the Exile.

• You inserted this: El (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel), not Yahweh, was likely the original "God of Israel" - this is a misreading of the sources.

>It was not El who was el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, it was Yahweh - it's a proposed origin of Yahweh's name, though the minority position.

• You deleted the word "invented" from the line "the invented national history of Israel"

> On what grounds? This was in the source. Presumably it offended your sensibilities, but that's not a valid reason.

For these specific reasons, I've reverted your edits. PiCo (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I believe much of the national history was invented. I don't think we can make that kind of blanket statement though, ie the article Exodus says "most scholars think it was a myth" not "it was a myth". --Monochrome_Monitor 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I used "national mythos" rather than "invented history", since invented hisotry has the connotation of deliberate fabrication. From there we can compromise. My only remaining complaint is the infant sacrifice bit, I would really like to see the source for its specific wording. I'm going to try an find it. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

MM, "invented history" is the phrase used in the source, therefore we use it. Our source is certainly aware of the implication of deliberate fabrication and intends it. "National mythos" is your own gloss, and alters the meaning of the source.

On infant sacrfice, again, you can check the source to see that it's being used accurately, but you can't delete it just because you don't like it. We must respect sources.

By the way, the article on the exodus doesn't say that most scholars call it a myth, it says it is a myth - but myth in the scholarly sense, not the popular one - what you're calling "mythos", which is the Greek.PiCo (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yaweh

Why are we even calling it Yaweh? The name originates from an attempted pronunciation of a word that is not meant to be literal. His actual name is Adonai. Can someone explain to me why we've made this mistake? If we wanted, we should just do a redirect from Yaweh to Adonai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C302:4982:FCB0:791E:A603:3AB7 (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

this article is biased

this article is coming from an academic biblical criticism point of view. There is nothing wrong with that but you have to keep balanced here. statements such as

In the oldest biblical literature he is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[5] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,[6]

and

and over time the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[7][8] By the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BC), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.[8]

is clearly misleading

Monolatrism#In_ancient_Israel has it a little better saying "The Shema Yisrael is often cited as proof that the Israelites practiced monotheism"

the idea being that "once one realizes that Yahweh is the god he has to realize that there is nothing "one" other then god" meaning to say that the only thing that cannot be categorized in to a group (apposed to say stars), or broken down to parts is god.

I am not trying to get into a theological discussion here but in order for this article to be balanced you have to have this opinion from the very start (from biblical text era).

This statement "El, not Yahweh, was the original "God of Israel"—the word "Israel" is based on the name El rather than Yahweh" is funny because no one claimed Yahweh was the original god of Israel, the bible says this outright.

This article needs a lot of work to be considered Neutral— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.216 (talk • contribs)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will objectively expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (c.f. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

clarification

First of all Thank you Tgeorgescu for the information but with this quote i will demonstrate what i am trying to say

"but the earliest plausible references to it place him among the nomads of the southern Transjordan."

however at the source itself

ttps://books.google.com.au/books?id=A_ByXkpofAgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=who+were+the+early+israelites&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5DrxVKKKBMnr8AXC_YKIAg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=who%20were%20the%20early%20israelites&f=false it says

the deity called Yahweh is attested as early as the 13th century B.C. in Egyptian texts the place him among the Shasu-bedouin of southern Transjordan - where some biblical texts also locate the origins of his cult

but the original way quoted it sounded like this wasn't consistent with biblical texts and it din't say it was from Egyptian texts (which is consistent with biblical writings)

Therefor i am saying that it seems a lot of quotes are quoted in a fashion that is biblical criticism and it seems that there is a lot of work needed to quote the sources in a way that they will sound neutral (and accurate) thank you 24.126.118.216 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

could someone help me out here??

Quoting Rainer Albertz as saying

Pre-exilic Israel, like its neighbours, was polytheistic

Is clearly a wrong quote, because while he brings a scholarly opinion as saying so (within a quote) His conclusion is (on page 62) that there most be support to a Monotheistic structure in yahweh that is older! Could someone explain this??

Another suggestion: There should be some reference on the top to Biblical Minimalism or Historicity of the Bible so this article can sound like it is under WP:NPOV Sadya goan (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Albertz is saying that there "must have been something in Yahweh religion (in the pre-exilic period) which led to the ... later prohibitions of alien gods" (in the exilic period). He isn't denying that pre-Exilic Israel was polytheistic, he's wondering what qualities in it led to a very strict form of monotheism. I imagine you could equally wonder what qualities in early 7th century Arabian polytheism led to the acceptance of the extremely strict monotheism of Islam, or for that matter, what qualities in monotheistic 1st century Judaism allowed the emergence of the highly qualified polytheism represented by Christianity (the idea of the Triune God).PiCo (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This should be a redirect

This article should be a redirect to God in Abrahamic religions or God in Judaism, I prefer the former. All verifiable content should me merged with the later. Schwarzschild Point • 15:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are asking this because you disagree with some of the content, just as at the dab page where it read Yahweh was the national God of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah." you removed 'national' on the grounds that's denied in the Torah. I've reverted you - the Torah is a reliable source for what it's content obviously, but it doesn't determine what this page says. Doug Weller (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Torah exibits inarguable Historicity regaurdless on your stance on its complete accuracy. In addition it is our most complete guide to what ancient Jews considered God to be.

Another inarguable point is that this article attempts to describe the same individual (again regardless of your stance on his existence) as the individual described in God in Abrahamic religions or God in Judaism and thus it's content should be merged with the former or the later depending on whether or not wikipedia equates iron age Judaism with modern Judaism.Schwarzschild Point • 16:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

An analysis of primary religious sources is prohibited by the policy WP:OR. See also WP:ABIAS for how we do things on Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your redirect proposal amounts to deletion of this article. This is how you should propose a deletion: Wikipedia:How to delete a page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, we assume that the version that's been stable for a long time is consensus, not the version preferred by a new editor unaware of our guidelines and policies. I'm not sure about the Torah's stance in regard to referring to the Jewish God as an individual goes, but the article describes the name as referring to a god who was first a local god and then or at about the same time a "divine warrior" who gradually got promoted. Only at the end of this evolution does the name become used for the monotheistic God of Judaism. So it's certainly not the case, let alone inarguable, that the name Yahweh has always been used to refer to the monotheistic God in Judaism. And yes, turning this into a redirect would basically delete the article (and I'm guessing we'd have a difference over 'verifiable content' - so you need to go to [[WP:AfD]. And the dab page description needs to match this article, so please stop removing 'national' from there. Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a new editor but a newly registered editor. I'm advocating a merge, the deletion process isn't needed. As for your spiel on the title, WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear that we need to use the word like it is used in American English, not Canaan. (whether or not it was used in Canaan being a matter of some contention.) Schwarzschild Point • 18:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You have misunderstood WP:COMMONNAME, it is not about the common name known to the public, it is the common name from mainstream reliable sources (in this case academic scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, neither Jews, nor Christians, nor Muslims commonly call their God Yahweh. Not even Jehovah's Witnesses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I do, also by "God", "Theós", "Jehovah" if it matters, which it doesn't. But scholorly articles, especially Jewish ones still use it, and outside of wikipedia you'll see that nearly every google result refers to the same person. The Torah, Bible and Talmud all refer to God by that name. Schwarzschild Point • 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you need a citation for that .Schwarzschild Point • 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

The point of "By the way" was giving additional commentary. WP:COMMONNAME does not refer to how the public employs the word Yahweh, so even if it were true that most Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly call their God Yahweh, that would not be decisive in this matter. It refers to how reliable sources use the term. Wikipedia sees everything through the eyes of reliable sources. Something exists for Wikipedia to the extent there are reliable sources for it and it means what it most commonly means in reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you find that citation to be unreliable you'd best remove it from Names of God. Schwarzschild Point • 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to have an opinion upon your citation, because it is a red herring in respect to the matter at hand. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned whether it is true or false. Either way, it isn't germane to our discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an academic source that finds "Yahweh" to refer to the God of the Bible. Since we have a disagreement between reliable academic sources I propose we change this article to use one of the other names it refers to per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME Schwarzschild Point • 20:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not refer to one or few academic sources, it refers to most academic sources, that is the difference.

Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

— User:Ian.thomson, User talk:TheNewSaadia#A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize, but your whole argument boils down to "the national god of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah wasn't a national god". As such, it is a lame argument, regardless of how this article should be named. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you define my argument as such then no it does not hold up, but if I were to define your terms it would be: "The God of the Bible at one time worshiped by 90% of the world is the god of a single nation." and it would be equally self defeating. I am arguing that either this page is talking about Yahweh and all sources regaurding him should be applied (i.e. not a national god) or it's talking about a different god and a different name should be used. Simple. Schwarzschild Point • 21:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then you should make an argument for renaming the article to Yahweh (ancient god) instead of merging it with articles describing God in various religions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't making an argument on which option to choose, but if that's what you feel is best then what are we arguing about? Schwarzschild Point • 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel that it would be best, but I admit that it would certainly avoid much nonsensical dispute. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation. Why shouldn't we do it that way?Schwarzschild Point • 00:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the only one making the call. Consensus would be needed for such change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the main detractor. I don't see how asking for your logic is unreasonable.Schwarzschild Point • 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I have commented your stance does not make me the only supporter of long standing consensus. There are several established editors who support the status quo, perhaps they did not say so yet, but they edited this article for years and they did not have problems with the title Yahweh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Minimizing controversy

According to MOS:CAPS:

"God is capitalized only when it refers to the Judeo-Christian deity"

Please leave the minimally controversial verbiage intact until we reach a consensus.

What is the rationel for describing Yahweh as a "National God"? Let's view each other's reasoning and reach consensus. Schwarzschild Point • 16:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The applicable policies are WP:RNPOV and WP:VER. You may want to read them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have. To my understanding the Torah is an acceptable refference per:

"Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources"

What material are you referencing that controdicts "But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD,"

א.וְאוּלָם חַי אָנִי וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד יְהֹוָה אֶת כָּל ָאָרֶץ 

Schwarzschild Point • 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Schwarzschild Point • 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As pointed below, that would be original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely you know that I will be able to find tons of secondary sources after a simple google search. Since this is not yet included in the article and the term "national god" is uncited anyway can you cut the megillah and tell me your logic? Schwarzschild Point • 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A source is given for the claim that Yahweh is a national god, you may want to verify the claim by actually reading the source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And if I provide a contradictory source you'll what? Ignore it? Choose your favourite? Schwarzschild Point • 17:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We choose the sources most appropriate to the subject of the article. Your proposal to change "national god" into "God" is POINTy, since it serves your declared purpose to redirect this article to another article, i.e. delete it without following proper procedures. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me Google it for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=patrick+miller+%22national+god%22&btnG=Zoeken&tbm=bks&tbo=1 . Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No need, I know the argument by heart, what happens when I give you another source that disagrees? Schwarzschild Point • 17:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm lookin' to merge it to one article and redirect the original page to another the content will still matter. Schwarzschild Point • 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, Yahweh as ancient national god is not the same as the present-day concept of God from Judaism or other Abrahamic religions. Anyway, you have to follow proper procedures for merging articles, you cannot simply cut and paste stuff and then redirect the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since WP:COMMONNAME Refers to "a name that is based on the normal language of everyday life" and the name "Yahweh" is pretty commonly known to refer to the God of the Abrahamic religions then this supposed premonotheistic protogod should use one of the other names the article claims he is known by.Schwarzschild Point • 18:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that Yahweh isn't "normal language of everyday life", it is scholarly parlance (scholars writing for other scholars and university students). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides, your quote wasn't from Wikipedia policy and guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME), but from the article common name, which isn't policy or guideline. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whopes, consider this then:

"A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:"

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • No, most recognize this word as the name of God. Including some million individuals who will not intone it due to it being the name of God.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Not likely.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • No attempt to distinguish is made.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Sure, it's shorter than needed, actually.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
  • No, I would argue the title very inconsistant with similar titles.

Schwarzschild Point • 19:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

— WP:NC

See also WP:WL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"God", capitalized, is a proper noun synonymous with Yahweh; thus it would be merely a circular definition to describe Yahweh as "the God" of this or that. But more than that, it would presuppose that such a deity existed. As I understand it, religious scriptures are considered reliable sources on themselves and the beliefs contained therein, but not on the existence or non-existence of God. The lower-case "god" can refer to the concept of a deity, which is essentially the subject of this article. Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)