Realist wrote:
the god of the old testament (jahwe) is the result of a mixture of older tribal gods...thats why many of the stories in genesis are written twice...once you have a masterful god who is creating someting good (the name of this god is elohim). then you have the same story but with a vengeful and incompetent god who screws up things and who kills or puishes people (his name is jahwe --> jehovah).
I just read an article in MacLean's magazine (a Canadian newsmagazine) which, in its December 9, 2002 issue, discusses Biblical archaeology. Our P.O. "warned" us about this article, so I immediately tried to find it. You can look it up online at:
http://www.macleans.ca/xta-asp/storyview.asp?viewtype=search&tpl=search_frame&edate=2002/12/
(I hope I did that right!) What I found fascinating is something along the line of what Realist wrote. The article mentioned above also seems to reiterate that point:
But what if the word is not to be trusted? And not just some parts, the ones that modern Christians and Jews -- fundamentalists and the Orthodox aside -- have already repudiated. The clearly mythical account of creation in six days, for one, or the miraculous touches in later accounts, like the parting of the Red Sea or the tumbling walls of Jericho.
Also,
Much of the older model of scripture-supportive scholarship was a house of cards waiting to fall. It's been 250 years since scholars noticed there seemed to be two strands of narrative running from the very start of Genesis. One referred to the Almighty as Elohim or God, the other as Yahweh or Lord. The former thinks highly of Israel, the northern and larger of the two Israelite kingdoms that eventually arose, while the latter favours the smaller southern realm of Judah. Later, more than 20 other sources were postulated to cover material that didn't seem to come from the first two -- a remarkable development, given that every last one of them is purely theoretical.Growing awareness of Bible sources meant a new appreciation of when it was compiled. Passages that favour the southern realm -- like Genesis 49:8, where Jacob sets his son Judah as king over his 11 brothers, founders of the other Israelite tribes -- could only have been written after they had become a reality. Most scholars push that date of composition to the 7th century BCE or later. For one thing, the patriarchal narratives -- the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- make constant mention of caravans of camels, an animal not widely used as a beast of burden before then. That means that well over a millennium of Biblical narrative is drawn from oral sources: epic sagas, folk tales, hymns, poetry, even puns and jokes. Little of it is a reliable guide to what actually happened, and the only confirmation is what excavations provide.
Holy Land archaeology began in the 19th century, and long remained the domain of religious scholars. They came to the Near East seeking support for their beliefs. As the French Dominican Roland de Vaux noted, "if the historical faith of Israel is not founded in history, such faith is erroneous, and therefore, our faith is also." Those early archaeologists thought they were able to place Abraham within a period of urban collapse and a migration of pastoral easterners at about 2100 BCE, just when the Bible said he lived. But subsequent excavations showed the eastern influx didn't actually take place. Attempts to move the patriarchs to other eras produced the same unhappy results. Today even maximalists like Dever have given up hope of establishing Abraham, Isaac or Jacob as credible historical figures.
For the exodus from slavery in Egypt -- the very heart of Judaism celebrated each Passover (and familiar to millions of Christians, if only from Charlton Heston's portrayal of Moses in The Ten Commandments) -- scholars relied on little more than faith dressed as reasonable presumptions. Many, however inadvertently, simply demonstrated the hold the Exodus story had on their imaginations. "Moses was beyond the power of the human mind to invent," British historian Paul Johnson confidently asserted as late as 1987. Something real must lie behind a story so vividly told, so long entrenched. And besides, adds Hershel Shanks, editor of the prominent Biblical Archaeological Review, no one can prove it didn't happen. Absence of evidence, runs the well-worn historian's mantra, is not evidence of absence.
But what an absence. Decades of searching the Sinai Peninsula for any trace of 40 years of Israelite wandering has turned up nothing, not a skeleton or campsite, from the period in question -- even though archaeologists have found far older and sketchier remains in the Sinai. Scholars now agree that the exodus -- if it happened -- had to have occurred in the 13th century BCE, which also turns out to have been an era of strong Egyptian border control, complete with records of who was coming and going. As for the traces of ruined Canaanite cities attributed to the Israelite conquest described in the Book of Joshua, the destruction turns out to have occurred at other times.
Anyway, the whole article was very interesting and eye-opening, IMHO. Maybe I should just post another topic, but it does seem to destroy any fundamentalist leanings towards a literal acceptance of what is in Genesis, including Adam and Eve, and any use of that account to explain what God wants/accepts/needs.
It's only been about four months since I had my "eyes opened" to the Watchtower's interpretation of things, and already I can't believe I actually accepted a literal interpretation of Genesis with no questions asked.
As for an explanation of does God need our flattery, if much of Genesis (and Exodus, etc.) is more parable or myth - then those accounts won't enlighten us, nor were they ever meant to.
And although I am a member of PETA, I agree with NameWithheld's analogy - and it better be only an analogy !
This is my longest post ever, must be getting the hang of things.