Was ‘God’s Wife’ Edited Out Of The Bible?

goddestTIME ponders the suppression of an omnipotent female counterpart to the male God solo-featured in Judeo-Christianity. Was this where the great Middle Eastern religions went wrong?

Some scholars say early versions of the Bible featured Asherah, a powerful fertility goddess who may have been God’s wife.

Research by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter, unearthed clues to her identity, but good luck finding mention of her in the Bible. If Stavrakopoulou is right, heavy-handed male editors of the text all but removed her from the sacred book.

What remains of God’s purported other half are clues in ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in an ancient Canaanite coastal city, now in modern-day Syria. Inscriptions on pottery found in the Sinai desert also show Yahweh and Asherah were worshipped as a pair, and a passage in the Book of Kings mentions the goddess as being housed in the temple of Yahweh.

90 Comments on "Was ‘God’s Wife’ Edited Out Of The Bible?"

  1. Paul Panza (who are you) | Mar 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm |

    What about god’s mother and father you never hear anything about them? Could it be they are not as supreme? Or is it because; just like god they do not exist.

  2. Paul Panza (who are you) | Mar 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

    What about god’s mother and father you never hear anything about them? Could it be they are not as supreme? Or is it because; just like god they do not exist.

    • Kali23Yuga | Mar 28, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

      Can’t go on the interwebs without having a ol’ theism vs. atheism discussion.
      This is getting so lame.. The existence of a deity is irrelevant in the study of history, for crying out loud..

      • Malkiyahu | Mar 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

        “The existence of a deity is irrelevant in the study of history, for crying out loud.” That’s a ridiculous assertion.

        But I am tired, as well, of the “ol’ theism vs. atheism discussion.” Reading comments from people who are SO convinced that their emotions are logic (this applies to both sides, but especially atheists) gets really, really old.

        • Kali23Yuga | Mar 28, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

          Oh, but I’m not an atheist mind you. I’m just saying the question “does God exist or not? Yes or no?” does not apply to this subject, hence the comment.
          Historians, anthropologists, sociologists etc. who discuss the topic of religion in their studies will never bother you with their belief/disbelief. Because, you know, they are scientists when writing this, not atheists or theists.

          • Kali wrote: “they are scientists when writing this, not atheists or theists.”

            But everybody either believes or doesn’t believe in God. That means that all scientists are either atheists or theists. And it will influence how they perceive the world around them and the view they take regarding scientific data.

            In addition, all the people reading this article will either believe in God or not believe in him. And that will affect how they understand the article. Therefore, the existence of God is indeed relevant to this conversation.

        • How is that a ridiculous assertion? Whether or not there is a god, the past happened the way it did.

          • Bud Bundy | Mar 28, 2011 at 10:57 pm |

            Are you so sure of that?

          • Curtis, Kali23Yuga’s contention was that “the existence of a deity is irrelevant in the study of history”.

            Considering how much of human history has been directly, and more often than not adversely affected by that very question of deities, it’s far from irrelevant.

            Indeed, if the god persona of the Middle Eastern religions had included a co-equal female presence, literally millions of women’s lives throughout the history of the entire Western world would have been a lot better, and far less tragic.

            Heck, we might even have scored equal pay for equal work by now.

          • Kali23Yuga | Mar 29, 2011 at 11:00 am |

            The study of religion is of course not irrelevant, I’ve said that clearly.
            But whether or not Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, YHWH or the freaking Tao really exist is a metaphysical question, it has nothing to do with historical inquiry.

            You honestly think religion ( which you define as some sort of abstract monolith ) is some sort of “vale of tears” from which we have escaped? That Enlightenment was truly an “enlightenment” and that the thousands years, before rationalists with a wig in the 18th century saw the light of day, were pure misery?
            Nice myth you’re propagating here.

      • Roscoe MG | Mar 29, 2011 at 3:54 am |

        It’s not really the study of history if it’s all made up though. It’s the study of a story, which kind of makes it irrelivant.

        • Kali23Yuga | Mar 29, 2011 at 10:42 am |

          You should read up on historiography. Even the difference between a narrative and history is vague ever since the linguistic turn. There are a lot of historians today who say history is just a story and needs to be perceived and treated as such. Positivists these days may roam the internet in packs, but in the scientific community itself they aren’t taken very seriously.

    • Look at any number of mythologies around the planet where the pantheonic heavies had to kill their more primordial parents in order to gain the roles that defined them. Chances are God’s parents were snarling, fanged giants.

      • Bud Bundy | Mar 28, 2011 at 10:58 pm |

        Thats pretty brutal. It also reminds me of the many species of Animal where a prospective Alpha Male had to kill the current Alpha Male to take the role, and that this was many times his own father.

        Probably unrelated, but I was reminded of it.

    • How can you be sure that God doesn’t exist, Paul? Quite frankly, you would have to know everything there is to know in the universe in order to make that statement with certainty. Since I doubt that you do, then I expect that you’re guessing or hoping that God doesn’t exist, probably because you don’t want to have anything to do with him.

      While the Bible uses masculine pronouns to refer to God, the Lord is neither male nor female. When the Bible says he made us in his image, it doesn’t refer to anything physical, but to the characteristics of intelligence, creativity, free will, the capacity to love, etc.

      The Old Testament reveals that there was a great deal of syncretism going on. The Israelites would inter-marry with pagans who introduced their false gods to them. They mixed elements of the pagan religions with the practices that God taught them. Therefore, if there is archaeological evidence with the names “Yahweh” and “Asherah” together, that shows the syncretistic bent of the people at that time, NOT that God had a wife. If you read the Old Testament, you will see that Asherah is a false god that the real God detested because it led the Israelites astray.

      • thank you. you are the only person who seems to realize this. but i’ve only read up to your comment so far.

  3. Kali23Yuga | Mar 28, 2011 at 7:48 pm |

    Can’t go on the interwebs without having a ol’ theism vs. atheism discussion.
    This is getting so lame.. The existence of a deity is irrelevant in the study of history, for crying out loud..

  4. For a religious person to be wrong, whooptee doo the light just goes out and that’s it. But if the atheist is wrong, their screwed, blued and tattooed. Have a nice day ; )

  5. For a religious person to be wrong, whooptee doo the light just goes out and that’s it. But if the atheist is wrong, their screwed, blued and tattooed. Have a nice day ; )

    • GoodDoktorBad | Mar 28, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

      Of course every thing you just said could be wrong too.

      “if the atheist is wrong, their screwed, blued and tattooed” of course this assumes that GOD is the psychopathic tyrant religion has made him/it out to be.

    • What if the Christian is wrong about the godhood of Allah?

    • Tuna Ghost | Mar 29, 2011 at 4:47 am |

      are you seriously offering Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in God

      • I know the statement seems to be that way, but it just boils down to what a person believes in for me. It has nothing to do with a wager, either you believe or you don’t. In the end who gets the shit end of the stick when either one is wrong?

    • Simiantongue | Mar 29, 2011 at 6:18 am |

      If the only reason you believe in god is “just in case”, don’t you think that an omnipotent being will see through a sycophantic self serving parasite?

      • I believe in God because that’s what makes sense to me, I leave religion out of it. It’s not a “just in case” scenario for me. Its Creationism vs Darwinism

        • Simiantongue | Mar 29, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

          “I believe in God because that’s what makes sense to me, I leave religion out of it”

          I didn’t ask you why you believe in god, I simply asked you if you thought god could see through such sycophantic behavior. But since you brought it up are you somehow outside of those conditions you arbitrarily set for everyone else? A special case perhaps?

          “It’s not a “just in case” scenario for me. Its Creationism vs Darwinism”

          If it is not a scenario of believing “just in case” then why did you pose the argument? An argument which, on the face of it, is really an asinine thing to say, as if people could just arbitrarily choose to believe something. They can’t, no more than you can choose to stop believing. Human minds don’t work that way. It’s a juvenile characterization of human psychology.

          Creationism vs Darwinism? You might just as well have said It’s Professional wrestling vs Mathematics. That doesn’t really make any sense. They are not equal opposites.

        • Butter Knife | Jun 7, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

          I see no reason to assume Krishna will take mercy on you…

  6. Anonymous | Mar 28, 2011 at 8:50 pm |

    Of course every thing you just said could be wrong too.

    “if the atheist is wrong, their screwed, blued and tattooed” of course this assumes that GOD is the psychopathic tyrant religion has made him/it out to be.

  7. Malkiyahu | Mar 28, 2011 at 9:03 pm |

    “The existence of a deity is irrelevant in the study of history, for crying out loud.” That’s a ridiculous assertion.

    But I am tired, as well, of the “ol’ theism vs. atheism discussion.” Reading comments from people who are SO convinced that their emotions are logic (this applies to both sides, but especially atheists) gets really, really old.

  8. Kali23Yuga | Mar 28, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

    Oh, but I’m not an atheist mind you. I’m just saying the question “does God exist or not? Yes or no?” does not apply to this subject, hence the comment.
    Historians, anthropologists, sociologists etc. who discuss the topic of religion in their studies will never bother you with their belief/disbelief. Because, you know, they are scientists when writing this, not atheists or theists.

  9. Stillshotprod | Mar 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    Uh…. The Bible mentions Asherah some 40 times. She wasn’t “God’s (or Yahweh’s) wife”, she was El’s wife, mother to Baal (who later married his own mother).

  10. Stillshotprod | Mar 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm |

    Uh…. The Bible mentions Asherah some 40 times. She wasn’t “God’s (or Yahweh’s) wife”, she was El’s wife, mother to Baal (who later married his own mother).

    • As I recall, in some texts, El was another name for YHWH.

      • Yes it was, but it doesn’t really tell us much about the Israelites. The names were also shared by non-Israelite religions and cultures. Polytheists have no problems with multiple gods and less problems with adding new gods. Oh, you Israelites have a god named Yahweh? Great, we’ll just add him to the list! Especially at the time various civilizations considered other people’s gods to be the same gods. The Greeks believed Osiris was simply the Egyptian Zeus.

        The only thing you see here is that idol worshippers could have accepted the Jewish god into their pantheon and identified him with one of their own.

  11. What if the Christian is wrong about the godhood of Allah?

  12. How is that a ridiculous assertion? Whether or not there is a god, the past happened the way it did.

  13. Look at any number of mythologies around the planet where the pantheonic heavies had to kill their more primordial parents in order to gain the roles that defined them. Chances are God’s parents were snarling, fanged giants.

  14. Bud Bundy | Mar 29, 2011 at 2:57 am |

    Are you so sure of that?

  15. Bud Bundy | Mar 29, 2011 at 2:58 am |

    Thats pretty brutal. It also reminds me of the many species of Animal where a prospective Alpha Male had to kill the current Alpha Male to take the role, and that this was many times his own father.

    Probably unrelated, but I was reminded of it.

  16. As I recall, in some texts, El was another name for YHWH.

  17. Bud Bundy | Mar 29, 2011 at 5:13 am |

    Personally I ascribe to the belief that the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is the same god.

    This is also a belief that could easily end in my murder.

  18. Roscoe MG | Mar 29, 2011 at 7:54 am |

    It’s not really the study of history if it’s all made up though. It’s the study of a story, which kind of makes it irrelivant.

  19. Tuna Ghost | Mar 29, 2011 at 8:47 am |

    are you seriously offering Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in God

  20. Considering the political effect Judeo-Christianity has had on society down through the millennia, the article is relevant to both sides of the god vs. no god debate, in that we have arrived at a state of imbalance with regard to the influence of gender as a result of it, if indeed it is true.

    Gut feeling and logic tells me that it is the vcase to some extent, if not entirely.

  21. Considering the political effect Judeo-Christianity has had on society down through the millennia, the article is relevant to both sides of the god vs. no god debate, in that we have arrived at a state of imbalance with regard to the influence of gender as a result of it, if indeed it is true.

    Gut feeling and logic tells me that it is the vcase to some extent, if not entirely.

  22. Simiantongue | Mar 29, 2011 at 10:18 am |

    If the only reason you believe in god is “just in case”, don’t you think that an omnipotent being will see through a sycophantic self serving parasite?

  23. Yes it was, but it doesn’t really tell us much about the Israelites. The names were also shared by non-Israelite religions and cultures. Polytheists have no problems with multiple gods and less problems with adding new gods. Oh, you Israelites have a god named Yahweh? Great, we’ll just add him to the list! Especially at the time various civilizations considered other people’s gods to be the same gods. The Greeks believed Osiris was simply the Egyptian Zeus.

    The only thing you see here is that idol worshippers could have accepted the Jewish god into their pantheon and identified him with one of their own.

  24. God's Freakin' Mom | Mar 29, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

    And once again, the knee-jerk atheists have to rush to assure us that history is irrelevant because they have personal issues with religion.

  25. God's Freakin' Mom | Mar 29, 2011 at 8:38 am |

    And once again, the knee-jerk atheists have to rush to assure us that history is irrelevant because they have personal issues with religion.

  26. Curtis, Kali23Yuga’s contention was that “the existence of a deity is irrelevant in the study of history”.

    Considering how much of human history has been directly, and more often than not adversely affected by that very question of deities, it’s far from irrelevant.

    Indeed, if the god persona of the Middle Eastern religions had included a co-equal female presence, literally millions of women’s lives throughout the history of the entire Western world would have been a lot better, and far less tragic.

    Heck, we might even have scored equal pay for equal work by now.

  27. Kali23Yuga | Mar 29, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

    You should read up on historiography. Even the difference between a narrative and history is vague ever since the linguistic turn. There are a lot of historians today who say history is just a story and needs to be perceived and treated as such. Positivists these days may roam the internet in packs, but in the scientific community itself they aren’t taken very seriously.

  28. Kali23Yuga | Mar 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

    The study of religion is of course not irrelevant, I’ve said that clearly.
    But whether or not Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, YHWH or the freaking Tao really exist is a metaphysical question, it has nothing to do with historical inquiry.

    You honestly think religion ( which you define as some sort of abstract monolith ) is some sort of “vale of tears” from which we have escaped? That Enlightenment was truly an “enlightenment” and that the thousands years, before rationalists with a wig in the 18th century saw the light of day, were pure misery?
    Nice myth you’re propagating here.

  29. I believe in God because that’s what makes sense to me, I leave religion out of it. It’s not a “just in case” scenario for me. Its Creationism vs Darwinism

  30. Then we’re all screwed, blued and tattooed. But even then, looking at each religion it seems to be very close in its story. I personaly believe that cultures, distance and time have changed all three of these main religions (Muslim, Jewish and Christianity) into what they are today and why we are all trying to kill eachother.

  31. Then we’re all screwed, blued and tattooed. But even then, looking at each religion it seems to be very close in its story. I personaly believe that cultures, distance and time have changed all three of these main religions (Muslim, Jewish and Christianity) into what they are today and why we are all trying to kill eachother.

  32. Then we’re all screwed, blued and tattooed. But even then, looking at each religion it seems to be very close in its story. I personaly believe that cultures, distance and time have changed all three of these main religions (Muslim, Jewish and Christianity) into what they are today and why we are all trying to kill eachother.

  33. I know the statement seems to be that way, but it just boils down to what a person believes in for me. It has nothing to do with a wager, either you believe or you don’t. In the end who gets the shit end of the stick when either one is wrong?

  34. I know the statement seems to be that way, but it just boils down to what a person believes in for me. It has nothing to do with a wager, either you believe or you don’t. In the end who gets the shit end of the stick when either one is wrong?

  35. I know the statement seems to be that way, but it just boils down to what a person believes in for me. It has nothing to do with a wager, either you believe or you don’t. In the end who gets the shit end of the stick when either one is wrong?

  36. Simiantongue | Mar 29, 2011 at 7:48 pm |

    “I believe in God because that’s what makes sense to me, I leave religion out of it”

    I didn’t ask you why you believe in god, I simply asked you if you thought god could see through such sycophantic behavior. But since you brought it up are you somehow outside of those conditions you arbitrarily set for everyone else? A special case perhaps?

    “It’s not a “just in case” scenario for me. Its Creationism vs Darwinism”

    If it is not a scenario of believing “just in case” then why did you pose the argument? An argument which, on the face of it, is really an asinine thing to say, as if people could just arbitrarily choose to believe something. They can’t, no more than you can choose to stop believing. Human minds don’t work that way. It’s a juvenile characterization of human psychology.

    Creationism vs Darwinism? You might just as well have said It’s Professional wrestling vs Mathematics. That doesn’t really make any sense. They are not equal opposites.

  37. Rmasterstyle | Mar 30, 2011 at 5:22 am |

    Hail Eris!!

  38. Rmasterstyle | Mar 30, 2011 at 1:22 am |

    Hail Eris!!

  39. Maybe they had an illegitimate child, banished to somewhere like Uranus?

  40. Maybe they had an illegitimate child, banished to somewhere like Uranus?

  41. Kali wrote: “they are scientists when writing this, not atheists or theists.”

    But everybody either believes or doesn’t believe in God. That means that all scientists are either atheists or theists. And it will influence how they perceive the world around them and the view they take regarding scientific data.

    In addition, all the people reading this article will either believe in God or not believe in him. And that will affect how they understand the article. Therefore, the existence of God is indeed relevant to this conversation.

  42. How can you be sure that God doesn’t exist, Paul? Quite frankly, you would have to know everything there is to know in the universe in order to make that statement with certainty. Since I doubt that you do, then I expect that you’re guessing or hoping that God doesn’t exist, probably because you don’t want to have anything to do with him.

    While the Bible uses masculine pronouns to refer to God, the Lord is neither male nor female. When the Bible says he made us in his image, it doesn’t refer to anything physical, but to the characteristics of intelligence, creativity, free will, the capacity to love, etc.

    The Old Testament reveals that there was a great deal of syncretism going on. The Israelites would inter-marry with pagans who introduced their false gods to them. They mixed elements of the pagan religions with the practices that God taught them. Therefore, if there is archaeological evidence with the names “Yahweh” and “Asherah” together, that shows the syncretistic bent of the people at that time, NOT that God had a wife. If you read the Old Testament, you will see that Asherah is a false god that the real God detested because it led the Israelites astray.

  43. thank you. you are the only person who seems to realize this. but i’ve only read up to your comment so far.

  44. “…but good luck finding mention of [Asherah] in the Bible.”

    Hmmm…let’s see there’s

    1 Kings 15:13: “He also removed his mother Maacah from being queen mother, because she had made an abominable image for Asherah; Asa cut down her image and burned it at the Wadi Kidron.”

    1 Kings 18:19: “Now therefore have all Israel assemble for me at Mount Carmel, with the four hundred fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

    2 Kings 21:7: “The carved image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which the Lord said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever”

    2 Kings 23:4: The king commanded the high priest Hilkiah, the priests of the second order, and the guardians of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel”

    2 Kings 23:6-7: “He brought out the image of Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron, burned it at the Wadi Kidron, beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah.”

    AND

    2 Chronicles 15:16: “King Asa even removed his mother Maacah from being queen mother because she had made an abominable image for Asherah. Asa cut down her image, crushed it, and burned it at the Wadi Kidron.”

    (All quotations are NRSV)

    Just to name a few. Asherah hasn’t been blotted out from the Bible. She is in her proper place as a false god alongside Baal. Yes, her image IS mentioned as being housed in the temple of Yahweh and it is regarded as one of the evil things some of the kings of Israel did to invoke God’s wrath and send them into exile.

    Read the passages that the above verses are found in and you’ll see that anything involving Asherah was bad news in the eyes of God. Just because there is pottery depicting God and Asherah being worshipped together doesn’t mean that God (The one TRUE God) approved of the practice. Just because someone put it on a piece of pottery 4000+ years ago doesn’t mean it was in line with God’s law for the Hebrews. This entire article is complete bunk and it only took me 30-seconds to do a digital search of scripture to find 6 (technically 7) mentions of Asherah in the Bible. Maybe if you actually read it instead of believing what people tell you about it you wouldn’t make these elementary mistakes.

  45. “…but good luck finding mention of [Asherah] in the Bible.”

    Hmmm…let’s see there’s

    1 Kings 15:13: “He also removed his mother Maacah from being queen mother, because she had made an abominable image for Asherah; Asa cut down her image and burned it at the Wadi Kidron.”

    1 Kings 18:19: “Now therefore have all Israel assemble for me at Mount Carmel, with the four hundred fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

    2 Kings 21:7: “The carved image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which the Lord said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever”

    2 Kings 23:4: The king commanded the high priest Hilkiah, the priests of the second order, and the guardians of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel”

    2 Kings 23:6-7: “He brought out the image of Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron, burned it at the Wadi Kidron, beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah.”

    AND

    2 Chronicles 15:16: “King Asa even removed his mother Maacah from being queen mother because she had made an abominable image for Asherah. Asa cut down her image, crushed it, and burned it at the Wadi Kidron.”

    (All quotations are NRSV)

    Just to name a few. Asherah hasn’t been blotted out from the Bible. She is in her proper place as a false god alongside Baal. Yes, her image IS mentioned as being housed in the temple of Yahweh and it is regarded as one of the evil things some of the kings of Israel did to invoke God’s wrath and send them into exile.

    Read the passages that the above verses are found in and you’ll see that anything involving Asherah was bad news in the eyes of God. Just because there is pottery depicting God and Asherah being worshipped together doesn’t mean that God (The one TRUE God) approved of the practice. Just because someone put it on a piece of pottery 4000+ years ago doesn’t mean it was in line with God’s law for the Hebrews. This entire article is complete bunk and it only took me 30-seconds to do a digital search of scripture to find 6 (technically 7) mentions of Asherah in the Bible. Maybe if you actually read it instead of believing what people tell you about it you wouldn’t make these elementary mistakes.

    • “Just because someone put it on a piece of pottery 4000+ years ago doesn’t mean it was in line with God’s law”
      But of course if they decide to put it on some scrolls to be buried 4000+ years and then translated into the “Holy” Bible it does right?

  46. I worship Proverbs 8 Wisdom as a Goddess (Sophia) A.K.A. Alchemy. Her Consort is Jehovah the Lord Hunter God. Their Son is Yeshua Christ. The Goddess Sophia was, “Brought up as a Master Craftsman At Jehovah’s Side.” Proverbs 8

    WiccanPope.com

  47. I worship Proverbs 8 Wisdom as a Goddess (Sophia) A.K.A. Alchemy. Her Consort is Jehovah the Lord Hunter God. Their Son is Yeshua Christ. The Goddess Sophia was, “Brought up as a Master Craftsman At Jehovah’s Side.” Proverbs 8

    WiccanPope.com

  48. I worship Proverbs 8 Wisdom as a Goddess (Sophia) A.K.A. Alchemy. Her Consort is Jehovah the Lord Hunter God. Their Son is Yeshua Christ. The Goddess Sophia was, “Brought up as a Master Craftsman At Jehovah’s Side.” Proverbs 8

    WiccanPope.com

  49. I worship Proverbs 8 Wisdom as a Goddess (Sophia) A.K.A. Alchemy. Her Consort is Jehovah the Lord Hunter God. Their Son is Yeshua Christ. The Goddess Sophia was, “Brought up as a Master Craftsman At Jehovah’s Side.” Proverbs 8

    WiccanPope.com

  50. When is someone going to mention Cain’s wife?

  51. When is someone going to mention Cain’s wife?

  52. When is someone going to mention Cain’s wife?

  53. When is someone going to mention Cain’s wife?

  54. Butter Knife | Jun 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm |

    I see no reason to assume Krishna will take mercy on you…

  55. I don’t think so. It can’t be happen so.  It’s a matter of religious faith and beliefs.
    http://parentalcontrolsoftwaresite.org

  56. I don’t think so. It can’t be happen so.  It’s a matter of religious faith and beliefs.
    http://parentalcontrolsoftwaresite.org

  57. I find this more than a little absurd in that this question comes well over 2, 000 years too late. This is, in fact, one of the key elements of the common religion that caused groups like the Essenes and the Gnostics to break away from the patriarch and edit out, once again, these little sorts of snippets from the books. It wasn’t always that way…. and countless people have suffered and died horrible deaths because of this very crock of shit.

  58. I find this more than a little absurd in that this question comes well over 2, 000 years too late. This is, in fact, one of the key elements of the common religion that caused groups like the Essenes and the Gnostics to break away from the patriarch and edit out, once again, these little sorts of snippets from the books. It wasn’t always that way…. and countless people have suffered and died horrible deaths because of this very crock of shit.

  59. TribeOfYahudahTheLion | Jun 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm |

    Asherah is a Fallen Angel, and a pagan idol who was worshiped in the Holy Temples as a God. God name is Ahayah not Yahweh, it means I am that I am translated in Hebrew Ahayah Ashar Ahayah. The only Feminite side of Father Yah is Mother who’s name is Ruach Hakodesh or Holy spirit. Together in the beginning the word was created by them as mother and father of the son Yashayah Ha Mashiach or Yah’s Savior the Messiah. Yashayah was before Adam and was sent unto him to comfort him through his fall from Eden.

  60. TribeOfYahudahTheLion | Jun 20, 2011 at 10:27 am |

    Asherah is a Fallen Angel, and a pagan idol who was worshiped in the Holy Temples as a God. God name is Ahayah not Yahweh, it means I am that I am translated in Hebrew Ahayah Ashar Ahayah. The only Feminite side of Father Yah is Mother who’s name is Ruach Hakodesh or Holy spirit. Together in the beginning the word was created by them as mother and father of the son Yashayah Ha Mashiach or Yah’s Savior the Messiah. Yashayah was before Adam and was sent unto him to comfort him through his fall from Eden.

  61. “Just because someone put it on a piece of pottery 4000+ years ago doesn’t mean it was in line with God’s law”
    But of course if they decide to put it on some scrolls to be buried 4000+ years and then translated into the “Holy” Bible it does right?

Comments are closed.