Talk:YHWH/Archive1

Isn't that odd? I've never seen it with a W before, I've always seen it written as YHVH. --Kels 06:50, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Am I totally off to think vaguely that the original four Hebrew letters were an anacronym for "The Great I Am"? And also, can we mention that the reason there are no vowels is that the language it was written in had no vowels? human  14:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yes, I believe the acronym YHWH, "Ya-WAY", (YHVH is almost always associated with the New World Translation, [Jehovah's Witness' version], vocalised as "Ya-VAY", which supposedly transliterated into "JehoVah") is the "name" of the Abrahamic deity and renders down to "I am that I am" or simply "I am my own cause", hence, God. I would only make mention of it having no vowels if one has an article on the ancient Hebrew language itself to link to. Warren Terra 15:28, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Kels: The W and the V transcriptions are interchangeable, as in fact would be Y and J. EVDebs 19:48, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Hence the pronunciation "Jehovah". Makes sense. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of an episode of Il Etait Une Fois...L'Homme (Once Upon a Time... Man) from my childhood. When Moses is pleading with Ramseses II as in the Exodus narrative, he pronounces it "Yahvah". I also remember the music, and the raining frogs. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yahweh the volcano deity
This section was copied from the talk page of the Jehovah article after merging the two. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the hundreds of verses such as this.....

Nahum 1:5-6 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

.....it is I think a good idea to now start to open up the debate on the likelihood Yahweh, the god of the ancient Hebrews, was in fact an imaginery volcano deity that was finally spun out into an all present, all knowing invisible god for anyone who wanted him.

The ancient Hebrews did live in a highly volatile location, which is where two continents are pulling apart. Mount Sinai (not the pretend one but the real one of unknown location) is described as a volcano in the Old Testament. God is not described as being seperate to the volcano and operating it from afar but said to reside in the volcano....his temple. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Interesting! Can you name the many active and extinct volcanoes in Israel? Can you name one (and indicate where it is)?--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question, albeit sarcastic. To know where the volcanoes are, one only needs to know where the rips are. Look at the land formation on a satalite image and you will see where the land has ripped on either side of the Sinai Peninsular. The Red Sea, the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aqaba, the Sea of Galillee, the Dead Sea, the Jordan River. That is where the Leviathans reside ;) The land volcanoes are in Saudi, Jordan, Syria, East Africa. The most likely locations for Mount Sinai are North-west Saudi or Jordan to the West of the top of the Gulf of Aqaba. The most significant volcano in the Bible story is more than likely Santorini, the cause of the ten plagues of egypt. That was the god 'that brought you out of Egypt' that the Hebrews were forever indebted to. Israeli Jews will want you to believe the Jews never lived anywhere else but they are not exactly motivated to letting the world know they actually worshipped their god in Saudi are they?(Oh My Volcano (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Santorini? In the Aegean sea? And the plagues of Egypt actually happened? So are there any volcanoes actually in Israel?  Could you name the other volcanoes you think were involved?--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This subject is obviously all very new to you so I would recommend you do some research into it. There is plenty to go on on the internet. We live in the age of information. Please make use of it. If you have questions based on a foundation of information then I will be happy to answer them. Prior to that, my efforts would be futile. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
 * No, you are the one stating that it was volcanoes which inspired the Israelis to believe in Jehovah. The burden of proof is on you. Please identify by name the multiple volcanoes which must  - by your logic - have been involved.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not unfeasible at all. Most of our myths, and the associated gods come from major (and frightening) things like earthquakes, volcanose, thunderstorms, fire - cause we can think of nothing more terror inducing, and what is a god, if not a dude that induces terror.  But to make any actual claims that YHWH himself is a volcanoe god, you'd have to have quite a bit of information about the early Isrealites that we simply do not have.  Also, it's important to remember that "yhwh" or "god" as he would become, was shaped from probably 2, 10, or 100s of gods in earlier versions of the religion(s) that over time melded from "god of the mountian" and "god of the rivier" (real names for god in teh Torah) to "god of war" (YHWH, as one of many other gods), and then into just 'god". [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Calibrated! let the voting begin!  15:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For yhwh to be a volcano God there would - at the very least - need to be actual volcanoes in the region which came up with him. I'm asking "Oh My Volcano" to demonstrate that that is the case. Only after that can we start to ask ourselves if yhwh could have been inspired by such a thing.
 * The only volcano he's come up with so far is on an island in the Agean sea, and that's a bit too far away.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, i get that. i was just saying the theory has grounds, but not the specific application.  but question: would knowing of volcanoes "far away" be sufficient for a people to worhip it?  Or would it really have to be something they see now and then?  in your opinion of course, since we dont' have any ancients here to tell us. ;-)  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Calibrated! let the voting begin!  17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Weirdstuff...if you could only get your angries out you might have space for some information. Please re-read my earlier reply....


 * To know where the volcanoes are, one only needs to know where the rips are. Look at the land formation on a satalite image and you will see where the land has ripped on either side of the Sinai Peninsular. The Red Sea, the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aqaba, the Sea of Galillee, the Dead Sea, the Jordan River. Even the Nile and Nile Delta will contain volcanoes. The submarine and river volcanoes were mostly known as Leviathan...apart from the Santorini volcano. The land volcanoes are in Saudi, Jordan, Syria, East Africa and even Egypt has a volcanic field with black vents. The most likely locations for Mount Sinai are North-west Saudi or Jordan to the West of the top of the Gulf of Aqaba. The most significant volcano in the Bible story is more than likely Santorini, the cause of the ten plagues of egypt. That was the god 'that brought you out of Egypt' that the Hebrews were forever indebted to. Israeli Jews will want you to believe the Jews never lived anywhere else but they are not exactly motivated to letting the world know they actually worshipped their god in Saudi are they?

Did you not see that the first time?

By the time the Israelis moved up the their promised land, volcano worship became history. They carried on using the same terminology to describe god's wrath and what god had done for them in the past but it bore no relation to what they experienced. They worshipped volcanoes when in Saudi/Jordan and that is where they established their laws but, being human, they abandoned their brimstone spewing deities for more pleasant land. That is in keeping with all other volcano worshippers. The Israelites were constantly reminded of 'the god that brought them out of Egypt'...the volcano god....to try to keep them loyal.

I do hope you're not going to ask me to name a volcano in Israel again because that would be seriously irational. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)) (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
 * So I googled, cause you know: knowledge - and there's not one active or recently (last 10,000 years) active volcano I can find in Iraq. Given that YHWH likely goes back to mesopotamia, i'm apparently needing help googling.  I did try.  would you please tell me the volcano there, so I can read up on it?  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Calibrated! let the voting begin!  22:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of rational thought in RationalWiki. Maybe it's teething problems. The jury is out on the origins of the Hebrews. My belief is that they were a random collection of vagrants, migrants and refugees from all over the place including Greece. The telve tribes was a euphemism for 'random bunch' and the tribes whose worship history fitted the chosen one for the newly formed alliance was used to add credibility and prestige. Here are a few ideas....mine fits with the Habiru one...

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeoplenewtestament/a/Origins-Israelites-Bible.htm

If they or some of them did originate from Mesopotamia, volcanoes would have been close by.

This map shows how Mesopotamia borders very mountainous regions of Turkey and Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Mesopotamien.png

Right in the middle of this mountainous region, on the border between Iran and Turkey, lies Mount Ararat where the great flood story is said to originate.

http://www.volcanolive.com/ararat.html

As you can see, it's quite a significant volcano and would certainly have been worshipped by Mesopotamiams, their land encroaching Iran and Turkey. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
 * But now you are switching the logic round. You start off by deciding that Yahweh was a volcano god. Then you look for areas which the the Israelites may have come from and then focus on those which may have had volcanoes.  And hey presto your point is proved. I think we have confirmation bias, begging the question, selective reporting  and, possibly,  Texas sharpshooter fallacy. --Weirdstuff (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite plausible that a volcano deity from somewhere where people contacted the Israelites may have been part of the composite that became Yahweh. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Weirdstuff. It was not me who said the Hebrews came from Mesopotamia. I simply toyed with that suggestion after it was put to me. The jury is out, as I have said before. In my opinion, it is irrelevant where they originated from, how many gods the Hebrews worshipped in total, where Mount Sinai really was, whether they were ever in Egypt, whether their genealogy is authentic, etc. Volcano worship runs through the Bible, it caused the most significant event in Biblical history (ten plagues), was evident when the laws were decided upon (at Mount Sinai) and was the inspiration for wrathful vengence for millenia. Forget the details and try to get a sense for the theme. It takes an empathic mind. You have to switch off your prejudism and open your mind.

To me, it's glaringly obvious but I am very well aware that mind control can be so powerful that a person can look at themselves in the mirror, fail to recognise themselves and become extremely angry when told they are looking at themselves. In the few years I have been working on this theory, I have found that the most hostile to it are atheists who were never theists. I suspect that is because instead of being atheist because they struggled to believe, they are atheist because they are angry with 'god'. I've heard or read many atheists saying 'god is a hateful, angry, violent, nasty piece of work'. You would never hear an ex-theist say that. In my experience, the more hostile a person is to this theory the more they unconciously believe in god. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Thats a lot of Fancy bullshit you said there Volcano. -- Mikal Harass  Follow 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's nothing new - cranks have been pushing this theory for ages. There's even books about it. -- PsyGremlin Speak! 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Storm God?
Isn't Yahweh a Storm god or am i just being lazy about keeping up on ideas?-- Mikal Harass  Follow 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yahweh is a storm god and a chief god and possibly a volcano god. The Ancient Israelites incorporated a great many ideas from a great many polytheistic cultures round them when they developed the concept of Yahweh. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * there are other gods, mentioned in the bible, that become part of "the mono god" (the names of god) including el tzur (the Rock), el makom (the place) so there are suggestions though might have been earlier gods. YHWH is not really a "storm god" in any useful reference "he threw down lighting' thpe thing, though he was a tribal god, and the language he uses throughout the bible, "I am a powerful and jealous god" is pretty typical of gods being used to justify wars with neighboring tribes.  It's unclear how he comes to the people, since he is not really from cannon, but from the south.  I've heard Eonite, but not sure if that's true.  his form, oddly enough, seems to be the same from the days of he and his consort, to his true monotheism.  never seen as embodied, never drawn, (because his awesomness would kill them? )[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Calibrated! let the voting begin!  14:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read Oh! Mr Vulcan's! blog I have now become convinced that the the spirit of Poe is not dead.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was kinda apparent about the time he started talking about how angry atheists are, yet also wanting to turn christins into pissed off children with teh "your god is a volcano" stuff. :-) nothing quite like attacking all sides at one time! --[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Calibrated! let the voting begin!  17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Though the Storm Theophany is much a part of Yahweh, it cannot suffice to explain the narratives. This is noted in this Published journal:

http://jot.sagepub.com/content/38/4/387.full.pdf+html

The reason for this is obvious and clear even though we know the persona of Ba'al had been usurped into the persona of Yahweh. In the Narratives the thunder and lightning is in the same body of text as other key descriptions. Meaning for the argument to hold above, one must woefully ignore the other descriptors in the body of the texts. Descriptors in which depict a burning mountain in smoke and fire to which quakes greatly.. Thunderstorms and lightning are key phenomenon of volcanic activity, and you can't intellectually cut these descriptions apart in the narrative and come out with a proper context of what the narrative is describing. The Storm GOD argument cannot actually stand up academically, it can only in reality be understood as usurped epithets from Ba'al to which become a part of the persona of Yahweh. SniprKlr August 27 around 1am

Volcano God Hypothesis
Actually Yahweh is an usurping of many deities including Ba'al. If you really want to look into the evidence supporting the Volcano GOD hypothesis, and yes storms are associated to volcanoes, you can feel free to read the following 7 chapter article, and two others that address in detail the subject:


 * http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/yahweh-the-worshiping-of-a-volcano-fire-god-of-war/
 * http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/mountain-god-worship-yahweh-god-of-the-mountains/
 * http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/yahweh-the-rock-of-israel/

These articles don't just spit out bible verses with unreasonable assertions and theories like I found and read on the blog mentioned. What I found interesting is the use of academic citations to which this person uses, and the articles themselves seem to be just a review of the evidence for Freud's hypothesis. It appears that for the most part, some time after the Theran eruption, there was a merger between two of the most prominent forms of worship in Mesopotamia and the Levant region. This to being the merger of moon and mountain god worship. Both El(El Shaddai) and Sin were considered the Creators and held a lot in common within their Epithets. Though it is still up for debate on whether or not Thera in itself was the basis for the story of Exodus, but it is clear that it is the best possible candidate for this likely fictional tale in regards to the eviction of the Hyksos rulers from Egypt who were known to combine and affiliate Egyptian deities with their Asiatic Ba'al Ha'ran.. A deity also known as the Moon God Sin to which Mt Sinai is named after. Hence Mt Sinai according to the sources means "Moon Mountain" while El Shaddai means "God of the Mountains", and "He who dwells on his shining mountain". I may be paraphrasing a bit on the last quote, but the evidence is pretty damn well presented in those articles.

SniprKlr 12:47 AM Sunday, May 11, 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm sure that Gods were associated with any number of inexplicable and violent natural events in the past. After all, the explanation of these phenomena was partly why God/s were invented - so it's no great relation to say "Look! This event was ascribed to a YHWH at some time in the past!"--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bob M, I would argue that is true, but when you read the descriptions cited, the phenomenon are connected and most often together in a single event.. Hence the thunder, hail, lightning, earthquake, pillar of fire and smoke ect ect ect are all in singular description and often back referenced such as in the case of Revelations in which back references to Exodus. The description in the bible, not just in Exodus, can only be matched to a volcanic event as there are no other natural phenomenon that can match the descriptions given. In my own conjecture I would argue that what likely happened here was that they realized at some point that all the phenomenon they witnessed can be attributed to volcanoes. Especially if any of them had bore witness to the Theran Eruption. This of course would be giving them logical reason to attribute the epithets to a single god, and usurp many of the other gods into one deity. That is my personal thoughts on it of course. And there was clearly a political conflict between establishing Yahweh vs El Sahddai (El the head of the Canaanite pantheon)as the GOD of Judah. This to where eventually the Yahwists "J" equated Yahweh with El Shaddai even though Yahweh was regarded as just one of the 70 sons of El according to the academic citations noted in the articles. It's actually rather interesting.

Furthermore, it's not just merely an event being subscribed since the bible in fact depicts this deity as not only the GOD of the Mountain, but also as the mountain itself. I noticed this when reading the articles to which I don't think the author addressed or noticed. Psalms 18 and other areas do this specifically. From what I can tell, this is a very classical case of animism and anthropomorphism. So Yeah, it's very complicated, but theme is indeed very persistent throughout. I would say in my opinion that it's obvious and hard to ignore to where it just makes sense. I would even say it makes other areas of the bible more coherent, such as in the case of Hebrews 1 where it discusses the lords radiance and how he makes flames of fire his servants. I would argue that the person that brought this up has a valid argument even though their blog "Oh My Volcano" seems really not well put together, or dogmatic. This is why I referenced the above articles for consideration giving he at least used sources and citations to back himself up with. And if you haven't read the second chapter in the first listed article, I would recommend doing so because I think it's incredibly the most interesting on the subject. SniprKlr 3:57 AM Sunday, May 11, 2014 (EDT)
 * To be completely honest I'm disinclined to read vast rambling tracts which - at first glance - seem to be comprised of hand-picked quotes which claim to demonstrate that YHWH was a volcano god. My disinclination is based an a number of factors.

---
 * 1) I don't really care that much. As I said previously, it is evident that Gods were invented to explain things which - at that time - had no explanation. So finding quotes which associate Gods with volcanoes is a sort of "so what" discovery.
 * 2) Furthermore even if it could be shown that YHWH were sometimes associated with volcanoes that would not show that he was uniquely associated with them.
 * 3) Life is short. Even if it could be demonstrated that YHWH was only and uniquely associated with volcanoes - so what? Would it really change anything?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Bob_M,


 * Firstly, the articles cited do not just simply select from a handful of verses and then run with them. Hence the articles cited go way beyond simply referencing verses and are supported by academic citation. 2ndly, the article are not a claim, they are articles going over the evidence to which supports a hypothesis presented to which the author had come to agree with. The evidence presented is quite substantial if not entirely beating a dead horse by the end of the 3rd article. Have you bothered to actually read them? I suspect you have not giving your response is incoherent to the articles cited. From what I can tell by your response here is that you likely merely glanced or assumed.. Also Bob, you are using a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. Your points of contention are intellectually meaningless here as they do not address the specific verses, content, or evidence provided on a point by point basis with equal or better citation.  However, you ask me what difference does it make? It makes a lot of difference in understanding ancient cultures and the history.. You act as if people should not address these subject in fear of offending the sensibilities of those worshiping the Abrahamic religions. Some people actually care to know and gain further knowledge of the subject. Lastly it doesn't matter if Yahweh is or was uniquely associated, as in it only matters if Yahweh was or wasn't. What is clear is that Yahweh was indeed a Mountain god just as clearly as the Tibetan gods were and are mountain gods. You can't just ignore that association or the descriptions given as if they don't exist as that would be entirely intellectually dishonest. And I will say that from what I have read, there is very little doubt about what is being described Bob. This became a major part of what you find in the bible even though other good chunks of the bible derive from other pagan mythology such as the story of Adapa and Lillith.  The Bible is really a deep and complex mixed bag, but there is no doubt that Mountain god worship has a central part in the OT and the NT. SniprKlr  10:44 PM Sunday, May 11, 2014 (EDT)
 * An ad hominem? At what point did I make a personal attack on you?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore if you seriously think that I am " ... in fear of offending the sensibilities of those worshiping the Abrahamic religions". then I feel I should point out that I consider the bible to be largely a collection of fairy tales.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You made the claim of the intentions of the author without actually reading and addressing what they author wrote. You assumed he had hand picked a handful of verses and made a claim as your basis for argument for dismissal. That is pretty close to being an Ad Hominem.. However you may be right that this might not quite fit as an Ad Hominem as I would perhaps instead cite :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_irrelevance

Now I think we both share the view that the bible is largely a collection of fairy tales. But even fairy tales often stem from something of reality. Tales of floods, storm, earthquake, the stars themselves have influenced the very making of these fairy tales. However, I will leave this discourse with the argument that the hypothesis has enough evidence to support it to consider it a reasonable hypothesis.<font color="Green">SniprKlr
 * But I'm confused. You explicitly - and somewhat patronisingly - stated that it was ad hominem.  Were you wrong or not?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very close to being an ad hominem giving you didn't actually address the arguments and content. You but rather made assumptions about the author's intentions and assumed quality of the Author's writing. That could be considered an ad hominem to some degree, but it definitely falls under a logical fallacy of irrelevance. Hence the point is, you used an informal fallacy to make an argument, and I am not wrong about that. The Author also presents clear evidence that the deity in question is indeed a mountain god. Not only does El Shaddai mean "God of the Mountains", he is also referenced as:


 * Quote: "bêlu šadī or bêl šadê, ‘lord of the mountain’; dúr-hur-sag-gá sikil-a-ke, ‘He who dwells on the pure mountain’; and kur-za-gan ti-[la], ‘who inhabits the shining mountain’. In Cappadocian Zinčirli inscriptions he is called ì-li a-bi-a, ‘the god of my father‘"

So no he didn't just simply present scripture from the bible, he presented actual evidence backing it up. And this is the deity Yahweh was equated to in Exodus 6:2 even though evidence in the article shows that Yahweh was one of the 70 son's of EL (El Shaddai) to whom usurped the Pantheon by getting equated to El. This also academically supported and cited by the Author of the articles in question. I suggest taking the time to fully read all the articles because when all the evidence is presented, there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis being questioned. So far, he's the only person I've ever seen really get into the details of the matter. <font color="Green">SniprKlr
 * So you admit you were wrong about the ad hominem bit?  An ad hominem would be something like "He has a big nose therefore he is wrong".  It has be to a direct criticism of a person.
 * I dismissed the argument an the basis that I simply wasn't interested in it. Read what I said. This is to a certain extent because I tend to get a little irritated by internet arguments based upon suggestions that people should read enormous "great blog X"  or listen to a particular fantastic youtube video in order to receive some new and profound illumination.
 * This could perhaps be described as "argumentum ad youtube". And my response could well be described as "The argument from indifference". --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You aren't interested in it and yet you find the need to comment here? You are then just wasting space here, and I am inclined to delete it all to keep this subject focused. And so you know, claiming he uses ramblings and therefore he is wrong is pretty close to an ad hominem. It's a fallacy argument to which you used regardless. <font color="Green">SniprKlr
 * In point of fact the guidelines for the wiki don't permit you to delete other people's edits. As for the rest I wish you good luck with it, though it seems to have about as much real-word relevance as debating the origins of Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We should be allowed to delete irrelevant fallacy arguments and other nonsense that just spams the TALK. This to which you have been doing.. Lastly, saying someone has irrelevancy that can cite academic sources is a terrible argument to make. You are presenting another fallacy argument, and you need to cease doing so. Stop using the Talk for irrelevant discourse BOB. <font color="Green">SniprKlr
 * Who spells Zincirli with that funny diacritic over the "c" anyway? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter? It's either a typo, or spelled that way. Curious to what your point is and how that is relevant to what is quoted.<font color="Green">SniprKlr
 * So far the only places I've seen it contain identical text, perhaps originally from a page on this site. Is there an actual source, i.e. someone well-regarded in a relevant field, or is this just copypasta from some blogger? Reminds me of some guys who went searching Mount Ararat for the remains of Noah's ark based on their analysis of ancient texts, without consulting the people who actually still live around Ağrı Dağı. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are cited in the articles.. Sources are as follows to which denote El Shaddai as a Mountain GOD, or cite the quoted text you are asking about:


 * 1) The Origin & Worship of Yahweh http://www.jstor.org/stable/527927
 * 2) ”The Targum from the Beginnings: “Tablet” Retrieved on September 12, 2010 http://www.dalamatiacity.com/urantia-clues.htm
 * 3)  Bailey, L. R. (1968). “Israelite ’Ēl šadday and Amorite Bêl šadê”, Journal of Biblical Literature 87, 434–38.
 * 4)  Cross, Frank Moore (1973). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 10, 57–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-09176-0. http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A0674091760
 * 5) Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods, Kyle Cathie Limited, 2002
 * 6) Ouellette, Jean (1969). “More on ’Ēl Šadday and Bêl Šadê”, Journal of Biblical Literature 88, 470f.
 * 7) ETSCL: Narratives featuring deities: Other deities, including “The Marriage of Martu”.
 * 8) Iconography of Amurru (PDF-article)http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch%2Fidd%2Fprepublications%2Fe_idd_amurru.pdf&ei=FrQZUYHSJoTy0wGepoCYBw&usg=AFQjCNH882zciZoHBoUqTx98vDgnOGSbWw&bvm=bv.42261806,d.dmQ
 * 9) Amurru in Encyclopedia http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tutorgigpedia.com%2FAmurru_es.html&ei=FrQZUYHSJoTy0wGepoCYBw&usg=AFQjCNHiN28mvIzdBfnZcLtYJV7OCJU3pA&bvm=bv.42261806,d.dmQ&cad=rja
 * 10) Bailey, Lloyd R., “Israelite ’Ēl Šadday and Amorite Bêl Šadê”, in Morton S. Enslin, ed. Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Society of Biblical Literature, 1968), 434-438.


 * On Google Scholar, you can not the following:


 * http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3263305?uid=3739696&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104152776323


 * Quote: deity of these peoples, ordinarily called "dAmurru," by the epithet Bel Sade ("the Lord of the

mountains").17 Presumably he gained this designation because he was thought to dwell in mountains in general


 * It is quite clear that El Shaddai was indeed a mountain god, and this god is depicted in volcanic imagery in the bible to where the Psalms, for example, can be considered the hymns of EL (El Shaddai)as noted by by this source in the article: http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

<font color="Green">SniprKlr
 * Well. That is quite a gallop of sources you've shown, some more legitimate-looking than others. Like Bob, I'm largely indifferent to this issue, and unwilling to pore over all of them in detail. Where I did look, I saw mountain gods associated with lightning. Vulcanism and storms may indeed go together, but you can see storms around "quieter" mountains too, so that doesn't prove much of anything. Got one or two convincing high-quality sources that make the volcano connection? Zeroing in on a particular page or two would be useful. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The only source I noticed to which was questionable was #2 to which seems to cite a discussion on the Tablet. The rest comes from published journals and works.. Now mind you, I didn't make this list as I copied it from the articles I presented. What you have to consider here is that the articles on that blog are essentially for the most part a review of the sources it cites. I am also indifferent to this as well.. Now I will agree that there are quieter mountains too, but in ancient cultures it is the mountains in which are seen responsible for such phenomenon like weather, lightning, and floods ect. This is cited in various other sources he has noted. But one thing you need to realize is that the descriptions go beyond that to include earthquakes and streaming rivers of fire.. When you places those together, the only natural phenomenon you have to which can match that description is a volcano. Hence your argument of quieter mountains is not really relevant, and even volcanoes have their quiet time. If you read the second article, it even goes into comparative religion in which shows the descriptions and language used in the bible is consistent with the hypothesis. And there has already been high quality references that make the argument that MT Sinai is a volcano. The one's that don't out right ignore the descriptions given, or chop them up into pieces to suggest other phenomenon. It's dishonest to ignore the descriptions given, and the direct associations given. Even ignoring the fact that the burning bush is on the side of Mt Sinai seems to be a common issue in debate. I think there is little doubt that El Shaddai was a mountain god, but the question remains if Yahweh was originally so, or came to be through usurping El Shaddai and his epithets.


 * Lastly, this source I quoted from "http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3263305?uid=3739696&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104152776323" (Pages 435-437), does mention the concern of tying El Shaddai with Amarru. This source goes on to point out that Amurru is tied to the Moon God Sin as a main argument to separate the two. However, I disagree with this argument simply because it ignored the description it cited regarding Amarru as the lord of the mountains to which effectively, with the association of the Moon God sin, make it a Moon Mountain god. The interesting link I am referencing here argues against such separation is that Mt Sinai translates to "Moon Mountain", or the "Shining Mountain" according to various source including the Jewish Encyclopedia. This while notably being described in volcanic imagery in the bible, and thus linking these deities vs separating them. More interesting is that the Hyksos Asiatic deity was Ba'al Ha'ran to whom is associate to the Moon GOD Sin. The very Hyksos evicted from Egypt as noted by the article and the sources in the article here:


 * http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/yahweh-a-volcano-fire-god-of-war-chapter-2/


 * Quote: In later ancient Near East times, the various ba’alim developed astral overtones, which were primarily solar in nature,41 but which could also be lunar. Even in post-Hellenistic times, we see this phenomenon continue to take place. A votary inscription in Harran devoted to the moon god Sin calls that god the “Baal of Harran.”42
 * [41] – See e.g. F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, n. 13, p. 7, who notes the equivalence of Baal Shamen with Zeus Helios, a solar deity, in Nabataean inscriptions.
 * [42] – Teixidor, op. cit., p. 43

Furthermore you can read this journal on "“Traces Of The Moon God SIN Among The Early Israelites“: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3264069?uid=3739952&uid=2134&uid=379000883&uid=2&uid=379000873&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&purchase-type=article&accessType=none&sid=21102529333967&showMyJstorPss=false&seq=1&showAccess=false <font color="Green">SniprKlr

"YHWH was a volcano god" is a running joke on /r/badhistory
Just saying.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I went to this only to find non-academic discussion. As in the main form of discourse in that link consisted of personal attacks and ad hominems. What I found there was that nobody was actually addressing the arguments, or even the evidence presented. However it seems to be largely a discussion about that same "Oh My Volcano" blog. The running joke to which avoids actually addressing anything in formal discourse is meaningless. Ad hominems are meaningless. I would not recommend using reddit as some sort of academic authority argument / fora, especially when you cite a forum discussion that does everything but discuss the subject academically. There simply is far to much usage of formal and informal logical fallacies used for there to have had been any meaningful discourse.

<font color="Green">SniprKlr 10:22 PM Sunday, May 11, 2014 (EDT)

New academic paper published on the subject of Yaweh being a volcano god
Jacob Dunn new paper published in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 'A God of Volcanoes: Did Yahwism Take Root in Volcanic Ashes?' JSOT 38 no. 4 (2014): pp. 387-424 "Since time immemorial, countless scholars have sought to discover the location of Mount Sinai and the origin of the deity Yahweh. One theory, the Midianite-Kenite hypothesis, places the early Yahwistic tradition and the sacred mountain associated with it in Midian on the eastern shores of Aqabah, far south of Canaan proper. This study combines the southern geographical placement of Yahweh's sacred mountain in Midian with biblical descriptions of the theophany at Sinai/Horeb—descriptions which have prompted scholars to interpret the events at the ‘mountain of God’ as volcanic in nature. Because the thesis of Yahweh as a volcanic-god has virtually disappeared from the current scientific literature, it is worth being presented once again. First revisiting the history of the ‘Volcano hypothesis’ and prior scholarship, this study next advances an interdisciplinary approach and a new reformulation of the Midianite-Kenite hypothesis, combining geography, geology, and volcanology with the textual element that deals with ancient Midian and the Sinai/Horeb theophany tradition. Finally, this study seeks to offer an in-depth analysis of the texts, both poetic and narrative, which seem to indicate Sinai/Horeb was a volcanic mountain and pilgrimage site in northwest Saudi Arabia." (Oh My Volcano (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC))
 * To clarify what you just added on to the article: (from the first sentence of your addition) did Yahweh emerge from Dunn's article (as the text says to me) or does the article, instead, discuss his emergence? I'm sure it's obvious to the knowledgeable reader, but I'm trying to clarify for the ignorant contingent's sake. MarmotHead (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From the synopses: Because the thesis of Yahweh as a volcano-god has virtually disappeared from the current scientific literature, it is worthwhile to present it once again.
 * In other words it's a crank idea minority belief - it's nowhere near the consensus position.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have it on good authority (his) that Jacob Dunn did not write that because he thought it was a crank idea. He wrote that because he felt it was a good idea that needed to be resurfaced and re-examined. He believes in the idea. Unfortunately Jacob, who is Jewish, hasn't been able to accept that a god that starts out as a volcano can never rise to anything other than a figment of people's ignorant but fertile imaginations. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

Isn't it correct that reversals of edits should be followed up with an explanation? Why is it that my edit last night that included the new academic paper was removed without my knowledge? That is blatant prejudice. I have put it back where it belongs so everyone can see it and make their own minds up about it. Views should not be cleansed from the page based on personal opinion. Right now IS is going around killing every man and raping every woman. Isn't it time we got to the bottom of this thing and put an end to this misery? I'm know what Jesus would say. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC))


 * Mentioning the Islamic State in this context is irrelevant and does not help your case. The text you added to the article has been cut from there and pasted below. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds? It has been made a permanent section of the Yahweh page on Wiki so what grounds do you dismiss it here? Saying you don't like it or agree with it is not grounds for dismissal. An academic has taken the time to expand our understanding and we should give him the same exposure as anyone else. If you do not replace my edit then you will be censoring with prejudice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh (Oh My Volcano (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)) I just looked up what the point of Rationalwiki is and found your number 1 aim is '1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.' Well, you're doing a fine job of standing in the way of science you great clots...Geomythology...the study of scientific explanations for mythological stories and creatures...making RATIONAL sense of it all like sensible people. Volcanoes were worshipped all over the world yet you think it's a crank idea not worth even being given public airing that the Hebrews could possibly have been worshipping a volcano and not a speaking mountain. And you think you're rational. We need a new Rationalwiki. It'll have to be called 'The Really Rationalwiki'. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC))
 * "It has been made a permanent section on Wiki"? A more honest wording would be "I just created a section on Wikipedia and I hope it sticks". (BTW, don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!)--ZooGuard (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Editing Wikipedia to make it endorse your opinion does not make your opinion correct.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No. It HAS been made permanent. I made an edit and someone else tweaked it and made it more inline with the rest of the page...plus added the link to the paper in the page's source credits. So you know what you can do. Removing information the public should see in a fair and uncensored environment does not make the information vanish altogether and, one day, these notes will be read through to show the lengths people went to to bury this idea just because it wasn't their idea. Reading the dros that is on this Irrationalwiki page that is clearly just someone's personal opinion written in casual chat says a lot about this shoddy outfit. I'll stick to Wiki. (Oh My Volcano (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC))
 * Don't slam the door as you leave, thanks. Scream!! (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It lasted about two days on Wikipedia before being reverted as "fringy at best." Since then, it's been re-added and rolled back twice more. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and the edit war continued a while beyond that, until OMV got blocked with indefinite duration for being a tendentious single-purpose account. If anybody wants to see a Gish gallop of "sources" nicely fisked, it is here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)z


 * Personally I think it should be added back with only the available sources and not as a claim, but noted as a possibility.. There are academic sources in which agree and are noted as I myself have presented. Fringe concepts usually go against the mainstream, but they usually lack evidence. Those that provide evidence often turn out to have actual academic weight, and when that evidence is ignored by the mainstream there is something wrong with the mainstream consensus. What I find here is that there is quite a bit of evidence to show this hypothesis to have merit. See my own responses above to which I listed articles that do in fact provide academic citations. SniprKlr
 * When the mainstream consensus has changed I'm sure that we will be happy to add it.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting part is that it is in mainstream papers as noted.., it's just not the direct focus of any of the papers. The problem is what is accepted by mainstream religion / theologians that more often than not use appoligetics that should never be considered academic or publishable.. What is interesting is that when the evidence is presented, it literally gets ignored and never addressed. You don't do that in science and expect your theory, or current consensus to hold. The current consensus does not address the evidence, it ignores it and uses fallacy arguments to support the rejection of. This behavior to which you do not find when they approach other religions such as in Tibetan Mountain God worship in mainstream academia. I didn't have much trouble citing academic citations to support the hypothesis, but I have found trouble getting people to actually address it and the evidence. Another problem with mainstream consensus here is that much of it is theologically motivated, as in has a direct conflict of interest.. It's often hardly scientific but rather largely opinionated in the non-secular sources that make up the majority of the mainstream consensus.. You for example avoided it yourself through discussion above. So when the mainstream woefully balks and ignores evidence, there is most definitely something wrong with the consensus. This most certainly should be added to the wiki in citation of the academic sources to which have been provided. SniprKlr
 * New academic paper: "Gods are absolute rubbish" by me. Why not remove all references to God and gods from the wiki? (and shut this nutter up!) Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your meaningless commentary.. I dare say you should be removed from the discussion and have your account banned. Especially when using personal attacks and trolling the fora. SniprKlr
 * My point, you tedious little twonk, is (roughly) "Who cares where some bronze age sheep herders got their idea for a god?" If anyone's trolling it's you. Now bugger off, why don't you? Regards, Scream!! (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the purpose of this Talk, or wiki page.. As in your commentary doesn't belong here.. Ironically it is you who need to bugger off. SniprKlr

YHWH the volcano god
Jacob Dunn's new academic paper published in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 'A God of Volcanoes: Did Yahwism Take Root in Volcanic Ashes?' JSOT 38 no. 4 (2014): pp. 387-424 "Since time immemorial, countless scholars have sought to discover the location of Mount Sinai and the origin of the deity Yahweh. One theory, the Midianite-Kenite hypothesis, places the early Yahwistic tradition and the sacred mountain associated with it in Midian on the eastern shores of Aqabah, far south of Canaan proper. This study combines the southern geographical placement of Yahweh's sacred mountain in Midian with biblical descriptions of the theophany at Sinai/Horeb—descriptions which have prompted scholars to interpret the events at the ‘mountain of God’ as volcanic in nature. Because the thesis of Yahweh as a volcanic-god has virtually disappeared from the current scientific literature, it is worth being presented once again. First revisiting the history of the ‘Volcano hypothesis’ and prior scholarship, this study next advances an interdisciplinary approach and a new reformulation of the Midianite-Kenite hypothesis, combining geography, geology, and volcanology with the textual element that deals with ancient Midian and the Sinai/Horeb theophany tradition. Finally, this study seeks to offer an in-depth analysis of the texts, both poetic and narrative, which seem to indicate Sinai/Horeb was a volcanic mountain and pilgrimage site in northwest Saudi Arabia." [|JSOT] (Oh My Volcano (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC))
 * I say add it as a possible, rather than mainstream, theory, to discredit it if nothing else. 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I had a discussion with the Author of that paper on reddit, it is a look into the subject similar to the sources I have cited.. He's quite upset that she is presenting his paper as a positive claim because it's not that simple since mountain god worship is among others such as moon god worship are interwoven into the persona of Yahweh.. I have read his paper, and it is really well done to which definitely supports that mountain god worship, specifically in the form of volcanism to which was indeed much a apart of this deities identity. Hence much of the Narrative cannot in any sense be explained simply be thunderstorm theophany typically associated to Ba'al. This meaning the imagery can really only be accounted for by volcanic activity as there are no other natural phenomenon that can suffice to match the narratives in any academic or scientific sense. Most of the problems with the theory deals with where MT Sinai as many scholars scoff at the idea if you can't locate the mountain. This problem derives largely in part that there is a great amount of blind bias by some scholars who have invested interests to promote a certain narrative.. As in they read Exodus as if it's all literally true where the entire narrative must be accounted for.. Thus ignoring the most likely possibility that MT Sinai is probably just a place card, and that Exodus in large in part fictional. Hence it is likely the story Exodus is a fictional tale based on experiences. We have been telling fictional tales based on real phenomenon since the dawn of verbal and written language. Many main stream scholars avoid having to address the fact that the poetic narratives are anthropomorphic and animistic in nature. Sometimes the truth isn't what they want to hear

But to sum things up, Yes El Shaddai and EL were mountain GODS.. Yes the Hyksos Asiatic deity was Ba'al Harran (Moon god Sin), and yes El Shaddai and Sin were likely, according to academia the same god. The link is further noted that MT Sinai means "Moon Mountain" while El shaddai means God of the Mountains and is known as he who dwells on his shining mountain.. This as the academic citations noted to which I had earlier provided. There are some apologetics out there that claim Mt Sinai stems from another Hebrew term, but it is very unlikely as it does not make any sense in the narrative. But one thing she cannot do is make a positive claim since yawheh is most likely a product of monotheistic strict Yahwists attempting to usurp various pagan pantheons, oral traditions, and deities into one religion. It is possible however that after the Theran Eruption the evicted Hysksos rulers returned to their native lands in lower Canaan and Syria, joining the semi-nomadic tribes in what they saw as the promise land. This noted also from an academic citation I already presented above. Basically it's possible that Yahweh's origins may stem from the Shasu of YHW in lower Canaan. There are some clues to suspect this, but nothing yet definitive. Hence no positive claim can officially be made, or accepted at this time as further evidence is necessary. So Exodus may be mostly fictional, but it might be a fictional tale based on a real event with quite a bit of exaggeration and propaganda. So is Yahweh a Volcano GOD? No, he's a mixed breed through the process of usurping.. But I would agree that this and moon god worship had become much a part of his identity more so than any others giving moon and mountain god worship were the most widely prevalent, and with the most influence during the eras in question. For a better word, Yahweh should be considered a mutt God in my opinion. SniprKlr
 * We are not historians so we are not the people best placed to evaluate the truth or otherwise of any historical claim - especially one which is generally rejected. We are obliged to accept the consensus on any issue. We cannot be in the business of evaluating non-mainstream historical claims.
 * Secondly I note your various comments along the lines of "The current consensus does not address the evidence, it ignores it and uses fallacy arguments to support the rejection of." and "This problem derives largely in part that there is a great amount of blind bias by some scholars who have invested interests to promote a certain narrative."
 * Our focus is more on Pseudoscience than Pseudohistory and one of the distinguishing indicators of pseudoscience is the claim that "the establishment" is in some way biased against a particular new revolutionary idea. So suggesting that the historical establishment is somehow conspiring to ignore this research does not necessarily sound convincing.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "We are not historians", Some of us Are ;-; -- Mie kal  12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right that we are not historians, but everything I stated on the subject derives from the citations noted and not from myself.. I myself wouldn't write the wiki. Lastly the sources I presented don't make a claim, but rather look at the evidence, or have evidence that shows this hypothesis has merit for consideration. Now regarding my post on the reliability of mainstream, it's been well known that many mainstream scholars and archaeologists are not reliable.. Such as when anything they find they automatically suggest it's associated to the bible as proof of a narrative, and I've run across this numerous of times when the scholar or archaeologist ect has a deep invested interest. This is why I find, in most cases, secular sources to be far more reliable than those who have a conflict of interest. If you like, I can provide direct examples to what I am inferring to. Now Pseudoscience / history is almost always based on claims without evidence.. What OH MY Volcano did, is such a case where she makes an absolute claim she can't support by the evidence. However that is not what the academic citation has done to which she misrepresented, nor the citations I provided have done. My comment on the subject is entirely based on the sources I provided from secular academic journals. Regardless, my basic point being made about mainstream credulity dealt with when evidence is ignored to which is contrary to the consensus, or when it's being forced to tell a narrative disingenuously. You can not in any academic sense woefully ignore evidence, fail to address it, and then proceed to uphold a consensus that has done so. That's not science, or proper history, that's psuedoscience and pseudohistory.  The linked academic journal by Dunn addresses that very issue btw. Lastly my statement is not a generalization of the entire establishment, please do not confuse as I am inferring only in where mainstream there exists a common inherent problem in which often plagues it due to conflicts of interest. SniprKlr