Thread: Have the ancient Israelites thought that other gods existed?

1.
Is there any record of the old israelites stand on Baal's existence?
I mean…it is pretty clear what they thought about praising or obeying him (baaaad idea) but does that mean they believed that he and all the other gods where made up

2.
As far as I know most antique people of that area handled other peoples religion by
a) including their gods in the believe system
b) finding an equivalent to their gods (for example re-name them and make them your god…or compare them and say: "Oh thats their version of Marduk/Zeus/Osiris")
c) allowed to pray to both (even if the version favored by the king, was of course the most important)
As far as I understood the bible that wasn't the way those called "the Prophets" handled it (even if some leaders like Jezebel or Salomon ignored that and been pretty tolerant about other religions)
So do they think that Baal & Co were...
a product of imagination
or some kind of competing deity
or an illusion made by the devil or god or an angel
or was he somehow included in the jewish believe-system (as a fallen angel or gods evil uncle or somehting

3.
And in case that they thought Baal wasn't real...is there a passage in Talmud, Bible, Apocrypha's or Thora that clearly states that they believed that Baal (or an other foreign god) wasn't real
Spoiler…I don't think that the 1. commandment is such a proof. In islam it's said that there IS only one god…(pretty clear)
the 1. commandment states that you shall not HAVE other gods…which doesn't negate the possibility that other gods exist as far as I understand the sentence.

4.
Do you think that the opinion about others god affected the jews popularity? Are there some sources about how Egyptians or Babylonian viewed the israelites monotheism? Have they been liked and respected for that or rather seen as intolerant fundamentalists

Looking forward to your answers.

The old testament has many references to Baal and they generally refer to Baal as a real entity. I can't remember offhand which passage it is but there is a story about them having a competition between God and Baal to decide which god they should follow.

Edit: I just remembered the Bible also mentions Baalim and Ashteroth.

El (pronounced ayl) was also worshipped. It seems that El became Al and then possibly Baal and Allah.

@point 4:
I had to think about this a bit. I don't know of any references to what the Egytians or Babylonians thought of Hebrew mysticism. I do know the Egyptians tried monotheism themselves for a short period under two Pharoahs but abandoned the idea.
I should point out that the Bible is to the reign of King Josiah and in Kings it is claimed that Josiah's high priest discovered the first books while they were restoring the old temple. Josiah was 641 to 609 BC
It is possible that Judaism was invented at that time as a state religion to unite a pretty broken country, Judea, under one ruler. Josiahs reign started about the same time as the northern state of Israel had been destroyed by the Assyrian Empire.
That might actually be how old Judaism is so there might not have been any Jewish monotheism before that time for anybody to report on and El (or God as the western bible calls him) would have been one of many existing tribal and village gods in the area.

3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) - YouTube

This link shows a decent history of the God of the bible.

It seems to be representative of most scholarly thought and shows the Jews having many Gods.

Regards
DL

The Israelites, the remainder of which are the jews, Samaritans etc. lived in a mostly polytheistic world, and rarely had the opportunity to live in ethnic isolation, so influences came in and out and the beliefs of the people were very fluid throughout the centuries, growing more exclusive to the God of the bible as time went on in order to retain their ethnic designation.

Elohim (Gods) in Hebrew is plural and refers to many - possibly the trinity. Although now it is taken as a name and refers to one god.

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Elohim (Gods) in Hebrew is plural and refers to many - possibly the trinity. Although now it is taken as a name and refers to one god.

It is a little more complicated than that. Regardless of belief in other divine entities, though, I doubt they had a pluralistic understanding of the ultimate G-d. Other divine entities under his control, though, which could include the other parts of the trinity, I'd find easier to believe as possible inside that understanding of G-d.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Elohim (Gods) in Hebrew is plural and refers to many - possibly the trinity. Although now it is taken as a name and refers to one god.

It is a little more complicated than that. Regardless of belief in other divine entities, though, I doubt they had a pluralistic understanding of the ultimate G-d. Other divine entities under his control, though, which could include the other parts of the trinity, I'd find easier to believe as possible inside that understanding of G-d.

Actually your understanding of God as singular only dates from the Hellenistic period in Hebrew history.
So not earlier than the 4th century BC and mostly during the Hasmonean period between 165 and 63 BC.

You know of the conflict as the struggle between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, although that was really just the end phase of it.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Elohim (Gods) in Hebrew is plural and refers to many - possibly the trinity. Although now it is taken as a name and refers to one god.

It is a little more complicated than that. Regardless of belief in other divine entities, though, I doubt they had a pluralistic understanding of the ultimate G-d. Other divine entities under his control, though, which could include the other parts of the trinity, I'd find easier to believe as possible inside that understanding of G-d.

Actually your understanding of God as singular only dates from the Hellenistic period in Hebrew history.
So not earlier than the 4th century BC and mostly during the Hasmonean period between 165 and 63 BC.

You know of the conflict as the struggle between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, although that was really just the end phase of it.

Can you provide evidence not that they believed in multiple gods/god-like entities, but that G-d himself is pluralistic? It would contradict directly with the Shema. I'm not closed to evidence, but I'd need some pretty strong data. As far as I understand it, the Sadducees/Pharisees conflict was over a number of things. But central to them was the existence of an afterlife, not the singular nature of G-d.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Elohim (Gods) in Hebrew is plural and refers to many - possibly the trinity. Although now it is taken as a name and refers to one god.

It is a little more complicated than that. Regardless of belief in other divine entities, though, I doubt they had a pluralistic understanding of the ultimate G-d. Other divine entities under his control, though, which could include the other parts of the trinity, I'd find easier to believe as possible inside that understanding of G-d.

Actually your understanding of God as singular only dates from the Hellenistic period in Hebrew history.
So not earlier than the 4th century BC and mostly during the Hasmonean period between 165 and 63 BC.

You know of the conflict as the struggle between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, although that was really just the end phase of it.

Can you provide evidence not that they believed in multiple gods/god-like entities, but that G-d himself is pluralistic? It would contradict directly with the Shema. I'm not closed to evidence, but I'd need some pretty strong data. As far as I understand it, the Sadducees/Pharisees conflict was over a number of things. But central to them was the existence of an afterlife, not the singular nature of G-d.

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy in how I said that.
I didn't mean God was not viewed as a person, only that they considered God as one among many other gods. The Greeks brought them the idea of Agnostos Theos. The unknown God.
or if you prefer, The God of No Name.

Edit
According to Diogenes Laertius in about 300AD Epimenides started the idea of the unknown god, which would make it about 600 or 700 BC but I have my doubts if that part of the story is right.
You find the idea of an unknown god in other Greek writings up until about 200 AD
A lot of the reasoning for an unknown but universal god is firmly established by Xenophanes of Colophon and Parmenides of Elea.
So that dates the idea to at least 500BC.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Elohim (Gods) in Hebrew is plural and refers to many - possibly the trinity. Although now it is taken as a name and refers to one god.

It is a little more complicated than that. Regardless of belief in other divine entities, though, I doubt they had a pluralistic understanding of the ultimate G-d. Other divine entities under his control, though, which could include the other parts of the trinity, I'd find easier to believe as possible inside that understanding of G-d.

Actually your understanding of God as singular only dates from the Hellenistic period in Hebrew history.
So not earlier than the 4th century BC and mostly during the Hasmonean period between 165 and 63 BC.

You know of the conflict as the struggle between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, although that was really just the end phase of it.

Can you provide evidence not that they believed in multiple gods/god-like entities, but that G-d himself is pluralistic? It would contradict directly with the Shema. I'm not closed to evidence, but I'd need some pretty strong data. As far as I understand it, the Sadducees/Pharisees conflict was over a number of things. But central to them was the existence of an afterlife, not the singular nature of G-d.

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy in how I said that.
I didn't mean God was not viewed as a person, only that they considered God as one among many other gods. The Greeks brought them the idea of Agnostos Theos. The unknown God.
or if you prefer, The God of No Name.

Okay, sure. However, G-d would be the supreme G-d in that model. He would be the only one actually responsible for the creation of the universe. Which I guess begs the question, "Wouldn't G-d have created those G-ds?" But it isn't surprising to me that they may have been inconsistent in their thinking.

Sorry, I added an edit to my earlier comment hoping to clear it up a bit.
The problem is the Greeks had an idea of the unknown god as the source only because they had the idea of this being essentially everything in the universe combined. It is not the concept as a personal god but of an impersonal universal spirit instead.

After the conquests of Alexander exposed the Jews to Greek thought what the Judeans took from the sceptic teachings was the idea of there being one God but still they kept the idea of this God as a distinct person instead of an impersonal spirit

I don't believe this is so there is no historical basis for monotheism in Judea stemming from Greece, especially considering the Samaritan religion and the dualistic Zoroastrian religion

Originally Posted by ishmaelblues

I don't believe this is so there is no historical basis for monotheism in Judea stemming from Greece, especially considering the Samaritan religion and the dualistic Zoroastrian religion

There is no historical source for monotheism before the greeks either unless you consider the brief period when the Egyptians toyed with the idea.

I do count that among other things, including the Samaritan religion stemming from the remnants of the Israelites, whom became distinct from the Judeans long before the Greeks swept through. Or the Zoroastrian religion which is as close to monotheism as one could get before the spread of Abrahamic belief systems. Zoroastrianism is so similar in ways it later adapted parts of the life of Jesus into its own tradition, when it was plucked from obscurity, to become a state religion once again. Also the idea of Monotheism in Judaism is precedes the influence of Greece, see Yehezkel Kaufmann "The religion of Israel."

The plagues against Egypt were possibly also against the gods of Egypt such as Ra the sun god as well.

Exodus 12:12

Does this mean those Egyptian gods really exist or did exist but died out if u are Christian or Jew?

Originally Posted by Sarah1234

Does this mean those Egyptian gods really exist or did exist but died out if u are Christian or Jew?

No.
There is no evidence that ANY gods exist, or did exist.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Sarah1234

Does this mean those Egyptian gods really exist or did exist but died out if u are Christian or Jew?

No.
There is no evidence that ANY gods exist, or did exist.

She means does this passage imply that within Judeo-Christian thought, one must accept that the Egyptian gods exist/existed.

I would say no, and even if they did such gods are personified beings and lack the simplicity required to truly be G-d. Regardless, I don't think such a personified god ever existed.

Originally Posted by Sarah1234

The plagues against Egypt were possibly also against the gods of Egypt such as Ra the sun god as well.

Exodus 12:12

Does this mean those Egyptian gods really exist or did exist but died out if u are Christian or Jew?

You wouldn't have found Horus walking around (the Egyptian saviour who gave rise to the myth of Christ) or any gods up in the sky, but the Egyptians imagined them crossing the sky in boats.
Exodus 12:12:

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

The simple explanation is that some Israelites were enslaved in Egypt (Israel in Egypt). Having escaped they realised there were gods to the south of them in the form of the Egyptian trinity (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and gods to the east with the Mithraic religion. Feeling that their Abrahamic type god had deserted them some had to redefine their divinity. Out of that grew the fictitious gospels.

[QUOTE=ox;571272]

Originally Posted by Sarah1234

Exodus 12:12:

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

The simple explanation is that some Israelites were enslaved in Egypt (Israel in Egypt). Having escaped they realised there were gods to the south of them in the form of the Egyptian trinity (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and gods to the east with the Mithraic religion. Feeling that their Abrahamic type god had deserted them some had to redefine their divinity. Out of that grew the fictitious gospels.

Not really, because there's no other evidence that they ever were in Egypt, or of an Exodus--they probably picked up the stories from another group that might have traded with or perhaps a some tiny group that joined them.

Originally Posted by Headdresser

1.
Is there any record of the old israelites stand on Baal's existence?
I mean…it is pretty clear what they thought about praising or obeying him (baaaad idea) but does that mean they believed that he and all the other gods where made up

2.
As far as I know most antique people of that area handled other peoples religion by
a) including their gods in the believe system
b) finding an equivalent to their gods (for example re-name them and make them your god…or compare them and say: "Oh thats their version of Marduk/Zeus/Osiris")
c) allowed to pray to both (even if the version favored by the king, was of course the most important)
As far as I understood the bible that wasn't the way those called "the Prophets" handled it (even if some leaders like Jezebel or Salomon ignored that and been pretty tolerant about other religions)
So do they think that Baal & Co were...
a product of imagination
or some kind of competing deity
or an illusion made by the devil or god or an angel
or was he somehow included in the jewish believe-system (as a fallen angel or gods evil uncle or somehting

3.
And in case that they thought Baal wasn't real...is there a passage in Talmud, Bible, Apocrypha's or Thora that clearly states that they believed that Baal (or an other foreign god) wasn't real
Spoiler…I don't think that the 1. commandment is such a proof. In islam it's said that there IS only one god…(pretty clear)
the 1. commandment states that you shall not HAVE other gods…which doesn't negate the possibility that other gods exist as far as I understand the sentence.

4.
Do you think that the opinion about others god affected the jews popularity? Are there some sources about how Egyptians or Babylonian viewed the israelites monotheism? Have they been liked and respected for that or rather seen as intolerant fundamentalists

Looking forward to your answers.

They certainly seemed to treat their God as their property and superior to others: "Our God is a jealous God" etc. But I've always thought the Old Testament seems a bit ambivalent as to whether the "rival" gods of other peoples they came into contact with were real but inferior, or unreal "idols". Possibly the thinking changed over time and evolved from a polytheistic idea of (rather parochial) rival gods towards the monotheism that Judaism seems to have espoused by the time of Christ.

But I can't claim to be an expert.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Headdresser

1.
Is there any record of the old israelites stand on Baal's existence?
I mean…it is pretty clear what they thought about praising or obeying him (baaaad idea) but does that mean they believed that he and all the other gods where made up

2.
As far as I know most antique people of that area handled other peoples religion by
a) including their gods in the believe system
b) finding an equivalent to their gods (for example re-name them and make them your god…or compare them and say: "Oh thats their version of Marduk/Zeus/Osiris")
c) allowed to pray to both (even if the version favored by the king, was of course the most important)
As far as I understood the bible that wasn't the way those called "the Prophets" handled it (even if some leaders like Jezebel or Salomon ignored that and been pretty tolerant about other religions)
So do they think that Baal & Co were...
a product of imagination
or some kind of competing deity
or an illusion made by the devil or god or an angel
or was he somehow included in the jewish believe-system (as a fallen angel or gods evil uncle or somehting

3.
And in case that they thought Baal wasn't real...is there a passage in Talmud, Bible, Apocrypha's or Thora that clearly states that they believed that Baal (or an other foreign god) wasn't real
Spoiler…I don't think that the 1. commandment is such a proof. In islam it's said that there IS only one god…(pretty clear)
the 1. commandment states that you shall not HAVE other gods…which doesn't negate the possibility that other gods exist as far as I understand the sentence.

4.
Do you think that the opinion about others god affected the jews popularity? Are there some sources about how Egyptians or Babylonian viewed the israelites monotheism? Have they been liked and respected for that or rather seen as intolerant fundamentalists

Looking forward to your answers.

They certainly seemed to treat their God as their property and superior to others: "Our God is a jealous God" etc. But I've always thought the Old Testament seems a bit ambivalent as to whether the "rival" gods of other peoples they came into contact with were real but inferior, or unreal "idols". Possibly the thinking changed over time and evolved from a polytheistic idea of (rather parochial) rival gods towards the monotheism that Judaism seems to have espoused by the time of Christ.

But I can't claim to be an expert.

The Torah repeatedly refers to foreign gods as gods made by human hands, and in other places the verbiage treats foreign gods and the idols of those gods as synonymous.

Most people don't understand the nature of the Jewish G-d at all, including Christians. Which isn't necessarily a problem, just how it is. I don't really grasp the nature of the Islamic god.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Most people don't understand the nature of the Jewish G-d at all, including Christians. Which isn't necessarily a problem, just how it is. I don't really grasp the nature of the Islamic god.

All three with their various denominations and sects belong to the abrahamic faiths, and as such, worship the same singular deity by way of the oral and textual lineage. I've personally often find it amusing when strife occurs amongst the three of them.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Most people don't understand the nature of the Jewish G-d at all, including Christians. Which isn't necessarily a problem, just how it is. I don't really grasp the nature of the Islamic god.

All three with their various denominations and sects belong to the abrahamic faiths, and as such, worship the same singular deity by way of the oral and textual lineage. I've personally often find it amusing when strife occurs amongst the three of them.

This is untrue. The Christian and Jewish understanding of G-d is fundamentally different on the most basic levels, and it would be just as accurate to say that Taoists, Buddhists, and Hindus all worship the same gods because they have origins among the same mythologies and people. Christians and Muslims attribute the Jewish G-d's actions into their own, and I can't really say for Islam, but Jews typically believe in a G-d that is as singular, unified, and simple as possibly imaginable. G-d has no traits or parts in Judaism and is more abstract that the more common personified G-d in Christianity. Applying a triune being to G-d and saying Jesus is part of Him changes Him enough that he is no longer the same god. You could be a non-trinitarian Christian, and you could be a Christian who accepts G-d's simplicity, but that is atypical. Most Christians believe in a different type of god then most Jews.

This is not a knock against mainstream Christianity, it could be that the Jewish understanding of G-d was wrong or incomplete until Christianity. I don't think so, of course.

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have the same rough history of G-d, tough. But His nature changes enough that it isn't fair to say they are the same.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have the same rough history of G-d, tough. But His nature changes enough that it isn't fair to say they are the same.

People's behaviour and "nature" changes too, but their identity (as in "who" they are) remains the same. Sharing the same oral and textual lineage makes the deity they worship; one and the same because with monotheistic religions, there is NO other.

Gandalf the wizard is still Gandalf even when he jumps across the various Tolkien novels.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have the same rough history of G-d, tough. But His nature changes enough that it isn't fair to say they are the same.

People's behaviour and "nature" changes too, but their identity (as in "who" they are) remains the same. Sharing the same oral and textual lineage makes the deity they worship; one and the same because with monotheistic religions, there is NO other.

Gandalf the wizard is still Gandalf even when he jumps across the various Tolkien novels.

Gogeta is not the same person as Goku. The Christian G-d is typically visualized as a triune being, three entities that together make up G-d. This is so opposite to the Israeli G-d that no, they aren't the same. If I made up a religion, and I borrowed the god of thunder, but then took away the aspects of him that made him who he is, (he isn't the god of thunder anymore,) and then said, oh, I'm actually combining two other gods with him, I have invented an entirely new god. I am not worshiping the same god as people who worship the thunder god because now his nature is different and he is an entirely new entity. Since the triune G-d combines three entities, and one of them is supposed to be the Jewish G-d, except the fundamental understanding of the Jewish G-d is that he is the simplest entity in the universe and fully one with no parts or traits, no, it isn't the same god.

Just because two things share a history doesn't make them the same. If I wrote a history book where a guy called Napoleon did everything Napoleon actually did, except in my book Napoleon is a 7'8" black woman from Columbia who was a perpetual nudist, no, I am no longer talking about Napoleon. Just sharing a name and a history does not make two entities the same.

Non-trinitarian Christians who don't claim Jesus is G-d, and possibly Muslims I don't know enough, may worship the same G-d. But a composite of Jesus and the Hebrew G-d is not the same entity.

Gandalf is not Gandalf in a fan-fic where he is half Gandalf, half Frodo, and is no longer a wizard.

(Note: I am not trying to belittle Christianity. The examples here are not insults towards that faith, and I am not implying it is a fan-fic or all made up. As I've said in other places, I consider myself a Christian in regards to considering myself a disciple of Jesus.)

I'm not sure if this is considered off topic and derailing the thread, but before I pursue this, I have to ask. Are you absolutely certain you want to go down this road?

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

I'm not sure if this is considered off topic and derailing the thread, but before I pursue this, I have to ask. Are you absolutely certain you want to go down this road?

Go down what road? The position that a trinitarian G-d is a different entity from the common Jewish G-d? I am making no claim that one is more valid than the other. I don't quite understand your surprise. Just about any Jew would say the same thing, this is the totally ordinary Jewish position. The G-ds are clearly related, but the understanding was altered. That's fine. Religion/culture evolves, and shoot a Christian could even claim that the understanding was incorrect/incomplete earlier. That's fine. But the two religions generally believe in different, but related, deities. Maybe most Christians don't believe this, but I am sure almost any rhabbi would agree.

If you say Jews and Christians worship the same G-d, you imply that I worship Jesus or believe Jesus is G-d, because Christians mostly believe Jesus is G-d. I personally don't think this is true even by his own words and the New Testament scriptures, but that's neither here nor there. If Christians mostly say Jesus is G-d or part of G-d, and you say Jews worship the same G-d, you unintentionally imply that Jews believe Jesus is G-d or part of G-d.

As I've said in an earlier post, all three religions trace their religious lineage back to the figure of Abraham, and to my understanding all three reveres (if not worship) the singular deity claimed to have sent the "commandments" (ten for some, and more for others) from the figure of Moses. If the claim that there is only one deity (a creator-type deity for that matter) in existence; that is after all the general concept of monotheism, especially more so when sharing the same lineage, no matter what these individual denominations and sects admit to believing, there is no multiple choice question to be given since there is only one deity in their tradition to choose from.

The differences in behaviour and "nature" of the worshiped deity's appearance in the various traditions matters not if we can trace them all back to the same deity. I may be angry today, mellow yesterday, brooding the day before, and gleeful last week, but I am still the same person and my identity does not change. I still get paid a salary to my name even if I am (behaviourally) a "different person" every other day.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

If Christians mostly say Jesus is G-d or part of G-d, and you say Jews worship the same G-d, you unintentionally imply that Jews believe Jesus is G-d or part of G-d.

I do not have to imply anything if we trace their history back through their oral and textual traditions.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

As I've said in an earlier post, all three religions trace their religious lineage back to the figure of Abraham, and to my understanding all three reveres (if not worship) the singular deity claimed to have sent the "commandments" (ten for some, and more for others) from the figure of Moses. If the claim that there is only one deity (a creator-type deity for that matter) in existence; that is after all the general concept of monotheism, especially more so when sharing the same lineage, no matter what these individual denominations and sects admit to believing, there is no multiple choice question to be given since there is only one deity in their tradition to choose from.

The differences in behaviour and "nature" of the worshiped deity's appearance in the various traditions matters not if we can trace them all back to the same deity. I may be angry today, mellow yesterday, brooding the day before, and gleeful last week, but I am still the same person and my identity does not change. I still get paid a salary to my name even if I am (behaviourally) a "different person" every other day.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

If Christians mostly say Jesus is G-d or part of G-d, and you say Jews worship the same G-d, you unintentionally imply that Jews believe Jesus is G-d or part of G-d.

I do not have to imply anything if we trace their history back through their oral and textual traditions.

Except that claiming G-d is singular, and claiming G-d is three deities in one, is two different gods. Islam and non-Trinitarian Christians and Jews may believe in the same G-d. Claiming that Jesus is G-d is a different matter entirely.

also, Jews believe G-d has a singular nature and so is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. So do Christians and Muslims I'd wager. (Again, I do consider myself a Christian in some respects.)

Originally Posted by SowZ37

[Except that claiming G-d is singular, and claiming G-d is three deities in one, is two different gods. Islam and non-Trinitarian Christians and Jews may believe in the same G-d. Claiming that Jesus is G-d is a different matter entirely.

There is only so many times I can repeat what I've said in my recent posts. You trace the oral and textual lineage and the obedience conferred by the adherents to the different figures in their religious history. In a monotheistic genre that shares a common lineage, what the adherents prefer to believe in about the identity of their preferred deity matters not from an investigative perspective.

Yes but Moses possibly struck the water and it bled. Was there not a God over that water? Was it the dead sea or what? God showed his power, against Ra , the sun God, by causing darkness. A so on. Question that is off topic: the people writing the old testament would have known about the Egyptian gods and Ra etc while they were writing the old testament correct? I'm just having a brain problem lol but please answer that question.