RE: God Yahweh Allah was a volcano.
August 6, 2011 at 9:11 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2011 at 9:45 am by Hannah.)
THE VOID:
Yahweh in the Bible is (chronologically early on) described as the god that brought Israel out of Egypt. Other than physical appearance (which is volcanic) he is described this way. My belief is that the Hebrews were in Egypt during the Santorini eruption and that they heard via refugees descriptions of the volcano. As it produced chaos allowing them to make a dash for freedom (or just a new life away from the chaos) with their Egyptian employers' gold, they attributed this natural occurance to a new god specifically for them and any future times they witnessed the same they again believed it to be the presence of their god. It is very clear in Exodus that the Hebrews needed to leave Egypt to worship their god. It wasn't possible to worship him in Egypt, therefore he had a defined location or locations. It is also very clear in Exodus that they believed god resided in the rim of the volcano at Mt Sinai. Lava rivers were his extended arms, flaming gas leaks were his angels, etc. The volcano was his home. Moses also, according to Exodus, met him at the top of Mt Sinai. In other words, he was tangible. This trait is lost later in the bible, when the massive devastations came to an end I assume. Then he became oomnipresent and in the heads of believers. Before, he was not in the heads of believers but in their view. They could see his abode and witness his wrath, etc, but he was not in their minds. It is, in my opinion, the fact his image was lost that made him omnipresent and eventually widely accepted as 'the god' of the world.
'God-feeling is down to a volcano'......with respect to yahweh. He started off as one thing and merged into something else but it was the innitial characteristics that set the firm foundations of the religion. It was mostly fear based (although there was forced gratitude for him helping them escape Egypt) and whatever happened in the area at the time must have been so profound it even frightened the Egyptians into believing in yahweh, albeit not worshipping him. It was only due to the Hebrews initially benefiting from the seismic disaster that they turned it into a god. Yes, other volcano gods have existed, and the Greek one may have influenced yahweh (especially given there may have been Greek refugees in the exodus), but how many volcano gods started off with such a massive event that also 'saved' a lot of people? The piety it must have resulted in will have meant the religion remained intact. Religions that are casually adhered to will not survive.
There are ash buried cities around the Dead Sea. I didn't have time to research them enough last night. Unfortunately most information will be from Christian sources and although you will get archaeological evidence of ash buried cities in the region from the right era you may also get information ommissions or outright lies. For example, the link I posted earlier claimed the cities were buried in ash and small sulphar balls that were not volcanic but that were derived from volcanic-intense heat. No such sulphar balls exist so that is either a lie or incorrect information. Either way, that article was pulled one week after it went live. Did they get lab test results back that confirmed the volcanic origin of the balls? If any information is discovered by Christians that could potentially be the piece that puts the puzzle together, expect it to be kept hidden. The main Saudi mountain tipped as Mt Sinai is mentioned in wiki with no mention of its volcanic origin despite, again, being capped with black heat exposed rocks. I did find this wiki entry in another psuedo-wiki site and the text was the same...word-for-word...except it still contained 'of volcanic origin'. I smell a cover-up. These discovery Christians might be out to get what they can spiritually but they all seem to be earning money from what they do so we should assume they will tweak their findings to best suit their financial needs. Leaving in 'of volcanic origin' would not exactly inspire Christians to buy their books would it? More likely they'd burn all their bibles instead. Now some Christians do seem prepared to mention volcanic activity but eventually the penny will drop and they'll either erase all information or eat some humble pie before spreading the good news of truth and liberty. Don't expect Israel, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi to get involved much in this. That would be like expecting Santa to investigate his own validity. Their involvement will go as far as proving the validity of Yahweh. Arhaelogical discoveries that put god at risk will soon be swept under the carpet.
Minimalist....
'However, your problem is the insistence on treating bible fairy tales as if they are real.'
I don't have a problem with it. You do. I treat all evidence the same....with discernment, albeit imperfectly. I feel sure it is a diary of events, mostly directions, names of places, laws, rituals, battles, etc. A think a vein of truth has been packaged with fantasy. There are two levels of untruth in the Bible. The first is the mistaken belief the volcanos were god. The second is the intentional packaging with fill-in and background myth. Once you appreciate the mistake that was made then you can picture the scene very easily. There is no logic to saying it was entirely fabricated. Evidence of them before they arrived in Israel will be skant as they lived like bedoins not leaving a trace. Besides, how long would you expect a broken pot to last in the desert? Sand blowing about will turn rocks into a beach. Once you give the Bible the benefit of the doubt then you start to realise it matches up with actual events, like the natural disaster I am uncovering that seems to have affected the whole of the Middle East. The skant evidence of natural disasters and evidence in the bible coroborate each other. There is a parallel there but you have to actively look for it. I've presented enough evidence to prove there is a definite correlation. Please go through my posts if you've missed it.
It is entirely possible for the Bible to contain a vein of truth and for it also to be wrong. It is possible to be an atheist and to believe some of the bible is true and that Jesus existed, the latter's existence even believed by Dawkins. It is, of course, much easier to just say it was all entirely fabricated.
'Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.' Richard Dawkins.
Yahweh in the Bible is (chronologically early on) described as the god that brought Israel out of Egypt. Other than physical appearance (which is volcanic) he is described this way. My belief is that the Hebrews were in Egypt during the Santorini eruption and that they heard via refugees descriptions of the volcano. As it produced chaos allowing them to make a dash for freedom (or just a new life away from the chaos) with their Egyptian employers' gold, they attributed this natural occurance to a new god specifically for them and any future times they witnessed the same they again believed it to be the presence of their god. It is very clear in Exodus that the Hebrews needed to leave Egypt to worship their god. It wasn't possible to worship him in Egypt, therefore he had a defined location or locations. It is also very clear in Exodus that they believed god resided in the rim of the volcano at Mt Sinai. Lava rivers were his extended arms, flaming gas leaks were his angels, etc. The volcano was his home. Moses also, according to Exodus, met him at the top of Mt Sinai. In other words, he was tangible. This trait is lost later in the bible, when the massive devastations came to an end I assume. Then he became oomnipresent and in the heads of believers. Before, he was not in the heads of believers but in their view. They could see his abode and witness his wrath, etc, but he was not in their minds. It is, in my opinion, the fact his image was lost that made him omnipresent and eventually widely accepted as 'the god' of the world.
'God-feeling is down to a volcano'......with respect to yahweh. He started off as one thing and merged into something else but it was the innitial characteristics that set the firm foundations of the religion. It was mostly fear based (although there was forced gratitude for him helping them escape Egypt) and whatever happened in the area at the time must have been so profound it even frightened the Egyptians into believing in yahweh, albeit not worshipping him. It was only due to the Hebrews initially benefiting from the seismic disaster that they turned it into a god. Yes, other volcano gods have existed, and the Greek one may have influenced yahweh (especially given there may have been Greek refugees in the exodus), but how many volcano gods started off with such a massive event that also 'saved' a lot of people? The piety it must have resulted in will have meant the religion remained intact. Religions that are casually adhered to will not survive.
There are ash buried cities around the Dead Sea. I didn't have time to research them enough last night. Unfortunately most information will be from Christian sources and although you will get archaeological evidence of ash buried cities in the region from the right era you may also get information ommissions or outright lies. For example, the link I posted earlier claimed the cities were buried in ash and small sulphar balls that were not volcanic but that were derived from volcanic-intense heat. No such sulphar balls exist so that is either a lie or incorrect information. Either way, that article was pulled one week after it went live. Did they get lab test results back that confirmed the volcanic origin of the balls? If any information is discovered by Christians that could potentially be the piece that puts the puzzle together, expect it to be kept hidden. The main Saudi mountain tipped as Mt Sinai is mentioned in wiki with no mention of its volcanic origin despite, again, being capped with black heat exposed rocks. I did find this wiki entry in another psuedo-wiki site and the text was the same...word-for-word...except it still contained 'of volcanic origin'. I smell a cover-up. These discovery Christians might be out to get what they can spiritually but they all seem to be earning money from what they do so we should assume they will tweak their findings to best suit their financial needs. Leaving in 'of volcanic origin' would not exactly inspire Christians to buy their books would it? More likely they'd burn all their bibles instead. Now some Christians do seem prepared to mention volcanic activity but eventually the penny will drop and they'll either erase all information or eat some humble pie before spreading the good news of truth and liberty. Don't expect Israel, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi to get involved much in this. That would be like expecting Santa to investigate his own validity. Their involvement will go as far as proving the validity of Yahweh. Arhaelogical discoveries that put god at risk will soon be swept under the carpet.
Minimalist....
'However, your problem is the insistence on treating bible fairy tales as if they are real.'
I don't have a problem with it. You do. I treat all evidence the same....with discernment, albeit imperfectly. I feel sure it is a diary of events, mostly directions, names of places, laws, rituals, battles, etc. A think a vein of truth has been packaged with fantasy. There are two levels of untruth in the Bible. The first is the mistaken belief the volcanos were god. The second is the intentional packaging with fill-in and background myth. Once you appreciate the mistake that was made then you can picture the scene very easily. There is no logic to saying it was entirely fabricated. Evidence of them before they arrived in Israel will be skant as they lived like bedoins not leaving a trace. Besides, how long would you expect a broken pot to last in the desert? Sand blowing about will turn rocks into a beach. Once you give the Bible the benefit of the doubt then you start to realise it matches up with actual events, like the natural disaster I am uncovering that seems to have affected the whole of the Middle East. The skant evidence of natural disasters and evidence in the bible coroborate each other. There is a parallel there but you have to actively look for it. I've presented enough evidence to prove there is a definite correlation. Please go through my posts if you've missed it.
It is entirely possible for the Bible to contain a vein of truth and for it also to be wrong. It is possible to be an atheist and to believe some of the bible is true and that Jesus existed, the latter's existence even believed by Dawkins. It is, of course, much easier to just say it was all entirely fabricated.
'Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.' Richard Dawkins.
