Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
carbon dioxide

Male Figurines From Ancient Judah Might Depict the God of the Bible

Recommended Posts

Here is an article from Biblical Archaeology Review that shows some old figurines depicting probably Yahweh as a male figure.  https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/is-this-the-face-of-god/

"Measuring about 2 inches tall, the head has prominent eyes, ears, and a nose. It has a flat top that is encircled by holes, possibly signifying a headdress. The figurine’s eyes and ears are both punctured, creating the eyes’ irises and ear piercings. As the only figurine uncovered from Qeiyafa from the early tenth century B.C.E., the figurine is significant."

3-moza-figurines

So God is male according to these very early people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Here is an article from Biblical Archaeology Review that shows some old figurines depicting probably Yahweh as a male figure.  https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/is-this-the-face-of-god/

"Measuring about 2 inches tall, the head has prominent eyes, ears, and a nose. It has a flat top that is encircled by holes, possibly signifying a headdress. The figurine’s eyes and ears are both punctured, creating the eyes’ irises and ear piercings. As the only figurine uncovered from Qeiyafa from the early tenth century B.C.E., the figurine is significant."

3-moza-figurines

So God is male according to these very early people. 

Not a very good likeness.  Which people made those?  And how old were the craftsmen when they made them? Oops, stupid question, God made the craftsmen, craftsmen didn't make God. And the craftsmen didn't make good images, either.

Share this post


Link to post

I am surprised to see a graven image of

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Here is an article from Biblical Archaeology Review that shows some old figurines depicting probably Yahweh as a male figure.  https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/is-this-the-face-of-god/

"Measuring about 2 inches tall, the head has prominent eyes, ears, and a nose. It has a flat top that is encircled by holes, possibly signifying a headdress. The figurine’s eyes and ears are both punctured, creating the eyes’ irises and ear piercings. As the only figurine uncovered from Qeiyafa from the early tenth century B.C.E., the figurine is significant."

3-moza-figurines

So God is male according to these very early people. 

 It appears that it is hard to find an archaeologist who agrees with him:

Quote

 

His theory was firmly rejected by all archaeologists who agreed to respond to Garfinkel’s premise. Some would not give it the time of day, while others said it is not coincidental that his article was printed in a mainstream magazine and not an academic journal.

“Unfortunately, this article is pure sensationalism that caters to popular, money-generating, demand, in presenting an unfounded and (at best) tentative identification as factual as he ignores existing professional research and studies, including avoiding reference to any of the publications by the excavators,” wrote Tel Motza excavation co-directors Shua Kisilevitz (Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University) and Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv University), whose finds served as a major basis for Garfinkel’s article.

A chorus of dissent
Of the archaeologists The Times of Israel approached, not one would accept the idea that these small male figurines represented the god Yahweh. 

Furthermore, they claim that Garfinkel “ignores all the early Iron Age horse and human figurines and figures found throughout the region, some of which provide significantly better parallels for the Motza and Qeiyafa figurines.”


https://www.timesofisrael.com/face-of-god-archaeologist-claims-to-find-10th-cent-bce-graven-images-of-yahweh/

 

Do we have any figurines of Yahweh?  If his name was too sacred to speak, it seems hard to believe that they would have had graven images of him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The true God of Israel is Asherah and there are plenty of figurines of her.  See Daniel Peterson's article at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss2/4/.   

That's overstating the evidence just a tad. I'd hardly say Asherah is the True God of Israel, even though her idols made appearances at Israelite shrines. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, OGHoosier said:

That's overstating the evidence just a tad. I'd hardly say Asherah is the True God of Israel, even though her idols made appearances at Israelite shrines. 

Nope.   Israel clearly worshipped her as the one true God, or maybe consort god.  There were images in the Temple.  Her history was written out of the Hebrew Bible, according to Margaret Barker and others.  

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

or maybe consort god

Now we're talking. A consort deity is by no means a "one true god" though, since it obviously must be consort to something. In this case, El Elyon, if I remember my Barker correctly.

The idea that Margaret Barker would hold anyone other than YHWH as the God of Israel is absurd, and so is the use of her work to support such.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Nope.   Israel clearly worshipped her as the one true God, or maybe consort god.  There were images in the Temple.  Her history was written out of the Hebrew Bible, according to Margaret Barker and others.  

They defiled the temple of our Lord, repeatedly, over time.  Remember?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They defiled the temple of our Lord, repeatedly, over time.  Remember?

No way!   She was the true worship of Israel, written out by the post-exilic scribes!!  See especially Dever, Did God Have a Wife?

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Nope.   Israel clearly worshipped her as the one true God, or maybe consort god.  

From:

"the one true God"

To:

"or maybe consort god" of Yahweh. 

Kind of a big difference there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

From:

"the one true God"

To:

"or maybe consort god" of Yahweh. 

Kind of a big difference there. 

Depends upon how you see the Trinity.  I read Peterson's work as saying she is the One True God, the Great I AM.  The paradigm shift of all paradigm shifts. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Depends upon how you see the Trinity.  I read Peterson's work as saying she is the One True God, the Great I AM.  The paradigm shift of all paradigm shifts. 

I don't think they believed in the trinity. Neither do I. 

While I appreciate research into Asherah and associating her with Heavenly Mother, I disagree with Peterson's conflation of the tree of life with Asherah.  

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

We all know there is no Heavenly Mother (there are "heavenly mothers").  But Asherah is a god unto herself. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

No way!   She was the true worship of Israel, written out by the post-exilic scribes!!  See especially Dever, Did God Have a Wife?

Deuteronomy 12 gives us a clear enough idea about how El and Yahweh felt about Asherah, and its reasonable to believe our Mother in heaven felt the same way about people worshipping Asherah, too.

No worship of Baal or Asherah was approved.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

We all know there is no Heavenly Mother (there are "heavenly mothers").  But Asherah is a god unto herself. 

I only have one Heavenly Mother.  Whether or not there is a plurality of Heavenly Mother's unto us mortals is not a doctrinal matter that "we all know".

What does "god unto herself" even mean?  There is no such thing as an isolated and independent God.  We can't have one without the other. "Man is not without the woman in the Lord."  It could equally be said that "man is not without the woman a Lord" and vise versa.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I only have one Heavenly Mother.  Whether or not there is a plurality Heavenly Mother's unto us mortals is not a doctrinal matter that "we all know".

"What does God unto herself" even mean?  There is no such thing as an isolated and independent God.  We can't have one without the other.

Your heavenly grand mothers, and heavenly great grand mothers, count as your mothers, too.  We all have more than one father and mother, and the number we have is infinite.

If you do not know that, your lack of knowledge doesn't detract from or diminish what I and others do know.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your heavenly grand mothers, and heavenly great grand mothers, count as your mothers, too.  We all have more than one father and mother, and the number we have is infinite.

If you do not know that, your lack of knowledge doesn't detract from or diminish what I and others do know.

I only have one mother.  I also have "grand mothers" and "great grand mothers".  There is a difference.

The idea of Heavenly grandparents is also not a canonical doctrine that "we know".  I do believe it however.  

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I only have one mother.  I also have "grand mothers" and "great grand mothers".  There is a difference.

You should be able to see that you have at least 2 Mothers.  1 who helped form your mortal body, with some help from others, and another 1 who helped to form your spirit, with some help from others.  I simply count others than those 2.

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

The idea of Heavenly grandparents is also not a canonical doctrine that "we know".  I do believe it however.  

True, not all of us "we" know, but I and some others do.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Deuteronomy 12 gives us a clear enough idea about how El and Yahweh felt about Asherah, and its reasonable to believe our Mother in heaven felt the same way about people worshipping Asherah, too.

No worship of Baal or Asherah was approved.

You're just wrong.   Dr. Peterson and William Dever reach the opposite conclusion, along with "Dr." Margaret Barker. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You're just wrong.   Dr. Peterson and William Dever reach the opposite conclusion, along with "Dr." Margaret Barker. 

Can you at least acknowledge that El and Yahweh didn't approve of the sexual orgies in the Asherah groves?  Or just didn't approve of the way the Canaanites were worshipping Asherah?

Asherah may truly be a name for one of our Mothers in heaven but that doesn't mean that everyone who knows her name should worship her, or that everyone who thought they were worshipping her was worshipping her correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

If you do not know that, your lack of knowledge doesn't detract from or diminish what I and others do know.

This is such a classic Ahab line 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...