Scholar claims God had a wife

A European theologian claims she has discovered from her studies that the God of the Bible had a wife who was mostly edited out of the Bible.  Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who studied at Oxford and is now a lecturer at the University of Exeter, claims she has studied artifacts from the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit in Syria that mention Yahweh alongside Asherah, the fertility goddess.

The artifacts include figurines and ancient texts.  Releasing her findings to the press in Great Britain, Stavrakopoulou says “You might know him as Yahweh, Allah or God. …After years of research specializing in the history and religion of Israel, however, I have come to a colorful and what could seem, to some, uncomfortable conclusion that God had a wife.”

Stavrakopoulou explained further that pottery found in the Sinai desert has inscriptions on it asking for blessings from Yahweh and his Asherah.  Another scholar, Aaron Brody, from the Bade Museum and with the Pacific School of religion, backs up Stavrakopoulou’s findings.  He states the ancient texts used for the Bible were “heavily edited” because most Hebrews were polytheistic and only turned to monotheism after they were exiled to Babylon and the temple was destroyed.

This story shows how those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ, even if they call themselves “scholars,” automatically draw conclusions based on their hatred for the God of the Bible to exalt themselves and promote their false beliefs.  In the rush to make a name for themselves and convert people to their false theology, due diligence is thrown out the window.

If these scholars were interested in the truth, they would know that the manuscripts that were “heavily edited” are the manuscripts from the Alexandrian texts that are the foundation for newer Bible versions.  The manuscripts known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and the Masoretic text which are the foundation for the King James Version have not been edited.  Real research also proves that Asherah is mentioned many times in the Bible and what was really edited are the words supporting true Christian doctrines.  Due diligence would have also revealed that Allah is not Yahweh.

The scholars also conveniently did not mention that Yahweh, God of the Bible, sent his prophets at various times to speak against the worship of Asherah or that the reason the Hebrews went into exile was because God was punishing them for their polytheism.  Here’s what the Bible says regarding the worship of Asherah:

And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:  And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.  And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.  And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. [Judges 2:11-14]

And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him.  [Judges 10:6]

And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. [1 Samuel 7:3]

And the king [Josiah] commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove [Asherah], and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron …And he brought out the grove [Asherah] from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron… And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove [Asherah]… And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians…

From these scriptures, we find out that Asherah was not Yahweh’s wife, but that she was worshiped mostly alongside Baal because she was Baal’s wife.  Yahweh has no wife.  And in the confusion of their idolatry, the Israelites often used Yahweh’s name interchangeably with Baal, which God hated.  They even went so far as to place Asherah idols in God’s temple.  Male prostitution and homosexuality were also included in the fornication practices of Asherah worshipers.

The artifacts these scholars have studied reveal that the Bible is accurate, but their interpretations of the artifacts are twisted.  Since they don’t believe the Bible, they made incorrect assumptions about the evidence to make people doubt its historical accuracy when evidence time after time proves the Bible is 100% true.

Source: Jennifer Viegas, God’s Wife Edited Out of the Bible–Almost, Discovery News, Fri., March 18, 2011.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

 

7 thoughts on “Scholar claims God had a wife

Add yours

  1. Prophecy coming true for us to witness is all this is.
    More false doctrine thrown against the wall to see what sticks.
    I am sure they will feature her on Nat Geo, or the so called “History Channel” along with ancient aliens, the gospel of Judas, The Nostradamas effect, and the Da Vinci Code! The more we concentrate on all these false presentations and lies, the less we see of the true word of God.

    “take heed lest any man deceive you:
    For many shall come in my name,
    saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many”. Mark 13:5-6

    Like

    1. As a matter of fact Allison, she was recently featured in a documentary TV series in Europe about these “discoveries.” Nothing like having your lies broadcast on the “idiot box” where people veg out and accept whatever they’re told.

      Like

  2. Harry – Of course God having a wife is completely silly, as you clearly demostrated with the scripture.

    I was somewhat curious about you calling the received text/textus receptus manuscripts, I’m assuming you meant the manuscripts that back the TR. The TR is a name given to a succession of printed Greek texts of the new testament, which were compiled by the faithful Dutch Catholic scholar Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was an amazing scholar and a friend to kings and popes, in fact he dedicated the TR to Pope Leo X, and it was duly copyrighted.

    Erasmus was sort of rushed to get out his TR first, as he was in competition with two others, who also wanted to be first, in later years he complained because of having to rush the work. He eventually published several more editions of the TR. Erasmus worked from only 6 Greek manuscripts, and he did not have the entire new testament in Greek, he actually had to use the Latin Vulgate to finish this work, which resulted in a few problems like Rev 22:19 which reads in the KJV “book of life” as opposed to “tree of life” There is not a greek manuscript on planet earth that has “book of life.” There are a few other verses that Erasmus translated from the Latin that have no Greek support, but I wouldn’t want to be too hard on this faithful catholic scholar’s work, it has stood the test of time, and the mistakes that he made can be easily corrected using textual criticism on the over 5000 manuscripts translators have available to them today.

    Like

    1. Greg, I meant the family of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus, or as I said in my post, the Textus Receptus manuscripts. Your version of Erasmus is what they teach in seminaries, but is not the real Erasmus. In other words, you’ve stated the revisionist history version of Erasmus.

      Erasmus despised the Roman Catholic Church and compiled Greek scriptural manuscripts on his own. One of the Popes after Erasmus’ death even blacklisted his works. Bottom line, Erasmus was not faithful to the Catholic Church and they despised him as much as he despised them. Erasmus, although he wasn’t perfect, was as detail-minded as faithful Jewish scribes when he handled the scriptures and made sure there were no errors in the same way Jewish scribes checked and re-checked when they made copies of the scriptures so they wouldn’t have any errors.

      His ties to the RCC are often brought up to cast aspersions on his greatest accomplishment–his Greek New Testament that was used for the KJV. Those who criticize him for his RCC involvement do it to promote newer versions and to cast doubt on the KJV, but ironically they seem to overlook the fact that the newer versions have had input from RCC scholars who have served on their committees. God has always used imperfect men to preserve his perfect word here on Earth so that ultimately the only one to get the glory for its perfection is God himself.

      Like

      1. Harry – I have been retired for nearly two years and one of my hobbies has been researching all things related to bible manuscripts and translations and the people involved, be they translators, researchers, writers etc.

        I can assure you I have no desire to spout any revisionist history. If I am wrong about any of the following, please direct me to better source material.

        I obtained the following Erasmus quotes from James Anthony Froude’s book “Life and Letters of Erasmus” Froude was an english historian 1818-94, and no friend to the Catholic church.

        1) “I will bear anything before I forsake the church” (p.355)
        2) “the Pope’s authority as Christ’s vicar must be upheld” (p.275)
        3) He didn’t think much of Luther “Christ I know, Luther I know not, The Roman Church I know, and death will not part me from it til the church departs from Christ.” (p.261)
        Erasmus wanted to change the behaviour of the church, Luther wanted to change its doctrine.

        Erasmus himself was a Roman Catholic Priest, while he vigorously denounced the corruption and immorality of the monks and prists of his day, he never objected to Roman Catholic doctrine.(at least as far as I can tell, or can verify)

        Again, If I am wrong about this please direct me to some source material. I have no desire to mislead anyone, indeed, it was because of so much confusion regarding translations that started me down this path in the first place.

        Like

      2. Greg, I revised my previous comments since upon further study, it seems Erasmus had enemies in the RCC as well as in the Protestant movement. One question we should probably ask ourselves is when did he say what? As all of us know, sometimes as we progress in life, our views may change. There are many authors who published things years ago that wish they could take certain things back, but the publications they regret still continue to circulate. This may be the case with Erasmus.

        Luther wasn’t exactly the best role model for us on some points. Although he was excommunicated from the RCC, he still held their hatred for the Jews and clung to what we today call “Replacement Theology,” which is a false doctrine.

        Here are some more quotes from Desiderius Erasmus to consider as published in Life and Letters of Erasmus by James Anthony Froude (1894):

        “What is religion, save peace in the Holy Ghost? The corruption of the Church, the degeneracy of the Holy See [i.e. the pope] are universally admitted. Reform has been loudly asked for, and I doubt whether in the whole history of Christianity the heads of the Church have been so grossly worldly as at the present moment.” [p. 291]

        “As to me, my worst enemies used to be the Dominicans and Carmelites. Now I am best hated by the Franciscans, and specially by the Observant branch of them. They have long railed at me inside their walls.” [p. 374]

        “…the Catholics, instead of repenting of their sins, pile superstition on superstition…” [p. 374]

        “You may say I cannot die better than among my brethren. I am not so sure of that. Your religion is in your dress. You think it sin to change from a white frock to a black, or from a hood to a cap. …There is no religion left in it save forms, which please the monk’s vanity, and make them fancy themselves superior to the rest of mankind.” [p. 177]

        Erasmus also wanted every individual in European society to have a copy of the scriptures to read for themselves. This was against what the Vatican wanted. Careful study of each individual manuscript on which the KJV is based has shown that they agree overwhelmingly with Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, but they often disagree with manuscripts that are used for the Catholic Bible and newer versions.

        Like

  3. A thought just occurred to me tonight about this report about Asherah. We are now in the season of Lent, which was originally a pagan festival in honor of this goddess who is also called Astarte and Ishtar from which we get the holiday Easter in her honor. Could it be that Ms. Stavrakopoulou’s findings are being reported at this time to promote neopaganism in the run up to their festival of Easter? Hmmm.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: