Yahweh as god of metallurgy

google.com/amp/s/www.haaret … -1.5992072

A new theory emerging arguing that Yahweh originated as god of the copper mines during Bronze Age, or as a god of metallurgy. It would make sense to make a god of a new emerging technology as a chosen god. I believe that polytheistic ancients tended to worship those gods that have them prosperity, or power, or worshipped these more than others. And a new emerging technology is the next best thing to an actual “miracle”.

I’d say quite plausible theory.

I thought this was more fact than theory… are we still trying to reinvent the proverbial wheel, and in doing so stagnate progressive thoughts/making the unknown become known?

Jhwh is an alchemical formula for sure.

…care to elaborate on that?

I’m not sure what you mean to say by reinventing the wheel, Mags. By theory I meant that Yahweh originally started as a local god of metal smith workers (the rest was just my assumption - it’s a common sense way to think about it, sure, but since it originated in a completely different time and in a completely different culture, I can’t be sure that that’s exactly how it worked). There is no evidence, other than interpretation of biblical descriptions, that Yahweh may have been a god of miners, or blacksmiths, as there are no statues or figurines of him or inscriptions found in mines. No actual tangible evidence. But the question that was raised is indeed a very interesting one: how did it start? And in that sense I believe it just may be possible to know the cause even if the people themselves may not have known it. I was saying its plausible because of my understandings of human psychology, but of course this doesn’t necessarily translate into ancient human psychology. It might. Or might not. Sometimes, temporal distance helps in assessment; but sometimes it’s also distorted by viewer’s subjectivism. The reason I’m taking my own views with a grain of salt is that the modern eye can, as I have seen it happen, due to missing data or contexts, draw erroneous conclusions about the ancients, even in so far as seeing helicopters and lightbulbs in Egyptian hieroglyphs, as evidence of their advanced technology, or seeing Neo-Assyrian kings wearing modern watches. And you might be surprised how many people buy into it. It is an example bordering on the extreme side, but to me this highlights the distortions produced by modern eyes, seeing everything through 21 century lens (and that may include psychology, or explaining reasons behind actions). We may label such people as gullible and stupid, but I’d say how do we know that our own interpretations, especially in the absence of clear evidence, or knowledge, are not affected by our own biases? When I base such reasoning on my own knowledge of human psychology, I really make myself (or common modern knowledge) the basis of the claim. But what do I really know about life on Sinai peninsula in 2000bc? Next to jack shit. Is it relevant? Perhaps it is. Perhaps we ought really to create a separate and more disciplined field of archeopsychology. Yes, we say human nature does not change with time, and maybe the ancients had a strong will to power, or whatnot, but as we also know, they were also superstitious, and lived in a different (evolutionary) environment, and we don’t know exactly how these affected their every day thinking, about themselves, the others and the world around them. Even today, we are turned off by the ideas of human sacrifice, or sacrifice of own first born, or genocides, or slavery, or sacred prostitution, or selling/sharing wives, or self-immolation, or other bizarre to us practices. But these were common and normal practices those times (I assume).

wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenite
And now I realize that apparently this theory is not new either. The Kenite hypothesis has been floating around for a while now, but without any tangible evidence, how does one go about determining how it may have happened? It’s like trying to peer through multiple (and reflective) windows. How willing are you to put the onus on your self alone and use it as basis for the rest that follows? It seems like no matter how far I go, I still have to go even further.