Wikipedia is a source of sources. You can scroll down to the bottom of the damn page and view the original sources if you really need the originals. No, you’re just using this as an excuse. Fuck off. Everyone can see right through this.
Lol. Meanwhile here you are, policing what people provide as evidence because you only accept something that supports your worldview. You should be a wiki moderator apparently… oh wait, they actually have standards.
Wikipedia is a source, even in academics. It isn’t a primary source. If you’re going to be pedantic, you could at least have the decency to be correct.
Repeating this doesn’t actually address anything I said though. Presumably you can’t actually engage with what was said because you have no standing.
Yeah see this is how I know you’re not serious. The author of that article isn’t “some guy”, he’s an incredibly respected and accomplished historian and archaeologist, specializing in ancient near-east civilizations. And you couldn’t be bothered to read past the first paragraph. You don’t want to have an actual discussion about this.
This is history. History works different than other sciences. You cannot just claim that it’s common knowledge/scholarly accepted that yahweh originated in a pantheon because one scholar puts forward a theory on it, which most scholars reject (but they get dismissed because they are “biased”)
History isn’t replicable and observable like chemistry, physics or biology
source?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
Wikipedia isn’t a source
Wikipedia is a source of sources. You can scroll down to the bottom of the damn page and view the original sources if you really need the originals. No, you’re just using this as an excuse. Fuck off. Everyone can see right through this.
Wikipedia is policed by radical jobless atheists like tgeorgescu who deliberately delete Christian sources
Lol. Meanwhile here you are, policing what people provide as evidence because you only accept something that supports your worldview. You should be a wiki moderator apparently… oh wait, they actually have standards.
Wikipedia isn’t a source. A whole Wikipedia article doesn’t back up your claim.
Wikipedia is a source, even in academics. It isn’t a primary source. If you’re going to be pedantic, you could at least have the decency to be correct.
Repeating this doesn’t actually address anything I said though. Presumably you can’t actually engage with what was said because you have no standing.
Sloth is a sin
https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/15051
So some guy has an alternative theory
That’s because the israelites were the worshippers of Yahweh
Yeah see this is how I know you’re not serious. The author of that article isn’t “some guy”, he’s an incredibly respected and accomplished historian and archaeologist, specializing in ancient near-east civilizations. And you couldn’t be bothered to read past the first paragraph. You don’t want to have an actual discussion about this.
I read all there was contained on the list. He admits it is literally just a theory
You’re either being obtuse or you don’t understand how science works if you think “he says it’s just a theory” is a gotcha
This is history. History works different than other sciences. You cannot just claim that it’s common knowledge/scholarly accepted that yahweh originated in a pantheon because one scholar puts forward a theory on it, which most scholars reject (but they get dismissed because they are “biased”)
History isn’t replicable and observable like chemistry, physics or biology