(February 8, 2013 at 9:41 am)Confused Ape Wrote:(February 8, 2013 at 9:12 am)John V Wrote: A wikipedia entry on religion (or any controversial issue) is usually little more than propaganda from the side which perseveres in editing the entry.
Wikipedia is a good place to start for anything because the articles provide lists of notes and sources. Any article which fails to do this is littered with bracketed comments of 'citation needed'.
Here's an example of one of the resources used in an article about Asherah. It's a book published by the Cambridge University Press which belongs to Cambridge University.
The Cult Of Asherah In Ancient Israel and Judah
Quote:Recent archaeological discoveries have encouraged scholars to reinvestigate the Israelite religion. In this book, Judith Hadley uses these discoveries, alongside biblical material and non-biblical inscriptions, to examine the evidence for the worship of Asherah as the partner of God in the Bible. By investigating the Khirbet al-Qom and Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, for example, where the phrase 'Yahweh and his Asherah' is frequently in evidence, the author asks what the ancient Israelites meant by this, how they construed the relationship between Yahweh and Asherah, and whether in fact the term actually referred to an object of worship rather than to a goddess. The author also evaluates more recent scholarship to substantiate her conclusions. This is a detailed and brilliant study which promises to make a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the exact nature of Asherah and her significance in pre-exilic Israel and Judah.
man has worshiped gods from the beginning
its the default position
"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
