Hi everyone, I'm David, AKA Earthling and I like debate and discussion with Atheists on the Bible.
With or against?
Hi David
Welcome to HAF.
Regards
Chris
Quote from: Stevil on October 26, 2011, 07:53:53 AM
With or against?
Debating against, discussions with.
I was an atheist for the first 27 years of my life, I am now 45. Everyone I know in my personal life are atheists, with the exception of my mother who is a baptized Jehovah's Witness. I myself loath religion, and consider myself apolitical and irreligious; I never have and never will belong to any organized religion.
Eighteen years ago at 27 I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it and discovered instead that I believe it. Since then I have studied it carefully and would change my belief in it if I found reason for doing so. I never have. Part of the reason I like debating with Atheists is that they present a challenge in a perspective I wouldn't normally have the opportunity to visit otherwise, and also I think that it has something to do with my having more in common with them than believers, who generally I don't care for discussing the Bible and theology with.
Though not associated with any organized religion, and not actually a Christian, not having been baptized into any apostate Christian congregation, my beliefs are comparable to The Jehovah's Witnesses. Their removal of pagan influence such as the immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, the cross from Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, Easter from Astarte, Christmas from Dickens and the winter solstice, and the Rapture from Darby are in line with my thinking, though there are some disagreements I have with them as well.
Up until recently I was providing responses to The Skeptics Annotated Bible, with Steve Wells, it's owner, linking to my responses from the SAB to my website, The Pathway Machine (http://thedaystar.webs.com/index.html). Though I still have those posted on my forum, I no longer do that and Steve is in the process of taking down all of the links since I took down all of the pages.
Right now my website is under construction and primarily used for me to tinker with.
Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 08:08:38 AM
Hi David
Welcome to HAF.
Regards
Chris
Thanks Chris, Its good to be here.
Welcome, Earthling. I think you're going to be interesting!
It will be interesting to discover what compelled you to believe in the bible. Do you believe in the stories of both the Old and New Testament?
Do you think your beliefs are based on emotions rather than cold facts?
Do you think knowledge is an inhibitor to faith?
welcome Earthling, it'll be interesting to hear your take on things. Personally I don't think there's much left of Christianity if you try and remove 'pagan' influences. The same goes for Judaism too, I think both were products of their time and borrowed much of their mythology and theology from earlier external religions, cosmology and philosophy.
Welcome!
Quote from: OldGit on October 26, 2011, 08:40:32 AM
Welcome, Earthling. I think you're going to be interesting!
Well, I hope so, Old Git, thanks. Awesome avatar, by the way.
Quote from: EarthlingWell, I hope so, Old Git, thanks. Awesome avatar, by the way
Thank you. That was taken in 2008, just after I last washed.
Quote from: Stevil on October 26, 2011, 10:59:10 AM
It will be interesting to discover what compelled you to believe in the bible. Do you believe in the stories of both the Old and New Testament?
Do you think your beliefs are based on emotions rather than cold facts?
Do you think knowledge is an inhibitor to faith?
I think what compels me to believe in the Bible is the archaeological support, the historical trustworthiness, eyewitness testimony, and the overall harmony of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The terms old and new testament are misnomers, and not supported by scripture. The terms were taken from the Latin Vulgate translation of diathekes, 2 Corinthians 3:14 which actually should read "covenant" rather than testament. When the Latin testamentum appears at Psalm 83:5, for example, the Psalmist wasn't saying that God's enemies have "arranged a
testament against him." Paul was saying that the Christian writings constituted a new covenant. The old Law covenant was a small portion of the pre-Christian writings as is evident by Paul's statement "whenever Moses is read." There is, in fact, no "new testament." The Bible is harmonious throughout.
My beliefs are based upon cold facts.
I don't think that knowledge is an inhibitor to faith, though I think that belief can be an inhibitor to knowledge. The Bible says that everlasting life depends upon the taking in of knowledge of Jehovah God and the one whom he sent forth, Christ Jesus (John 17:3) and it praises the skeptical efforts of the Beroeans who checked the scriptures to see if what they were being told was accurate. (Acts 17:11)
It also warns of "an operation of error" meaning that God will allow those who want to believe a lie to believe what they will. (1 John 4:1-3, 6)
Stevil and Earthing
What is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it ;)
Quote from: Earthling on October 26, 2011, 04:37:16 PM
My beliefs are based upon cold facts.
Oh dear. Well that about wraps it up for atheism then.
QuoteWhat is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it
Whoops, sorry Tank. ;D
Quote from: Earthling on October 26, 2011, 04:37:16 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 26, 2011, 10:59:10 AM
I think what compels me to believe in the Bible is the archaeological support, the historical trustworthiness, eyewitness testimony, and the overall harmony of scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
My beliefs are based upon cold facts.
My background's in archaeology, and it doesn't back up the Bible in any way shape or form. In fact it contradicts most of the OT narrative, and hasn't provided any evidence to back up the NT either. As for eyewitness testimony, the OT books were written centuries after any supposed events, and the NT books were written decades after, often 50 or more years. So I'm not sure you can say your beliefs are based on 'cold facts', but it'll be interesting to hear your take on these things.
Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 04:39:56 PM
Stevil and Earthing
What is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it ;)
I don't understand, I thought the 10 post rule amounted to a restriction to the Get To Know You portion of the forums until that 10 post goal is reached. I'm anxious to reach that goal but how could I ignore it? Is there some restriction on the subject of the post that I may have overlooked, other than the lazy 1 word "hi" or "yes" posts?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 26, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
welcome Earthling, it'll be interesting to hear your take on things. Personally I don't think there's much left of Christianity if you try and remove 'pagan' influences. The same goes for Judaism too, I think both were products of their time and borrowed much of their mythology and theology from earlier external religions, cosmology and philosophy.
The nature of religion is to transmogrify the original meanings over time. You see this especially once an organized religion becomes sponsored by the state. Constantine with Christianity, for example, produced the Trinity and Cross. However, the original teachings can be seen beneath the infiltration of outside forces. Modern day Christianity is far removed from the original, of course, but it didn't borrow those influences from the start, but with much controversy and historical documentation.
Quote from: Earthling on October 26, 2011, 06:01:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 04:39:56 PM
Stevil and Earthing
What is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it ;)
I don't understand, I thought the 10 post rule amounted to a restriction to the Get To Know You portion of the forums until that 10 post goal is reached. I'm anxious to reach that goal but how could I ignore it? Is there some restriction on the subject of the post that I may have overlooked, other than the lazy 1 word "hi" or "yes" posts?
Basically the idea of 'getting to know you' is 'getting to know you' not 'let's debate religion'.
Earthling
I have move this thread to religion
I have locked this thread
I have restricted you to Getting To Know You area until you convince me you haven't just come here to preach.
So I suggest you go to the Laid Back Lounge and start interacting with the forum as a member and not just a preacher.
Tank
PS If anybody feels that I could have handled this better please PM me. :)
Quote from: Earthling on October 26, 2011, 06:01:34 PM
Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 04:39:56 PM
Stevil and Earthing
What is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it ;)
I don't understand, I thought the 10 post rule amounted to a restriction to the Get To Know You portion of the forums until that 10 post goal is reached. I'm anxious to reach that goal but how could I ignore it? Is there some restriction on the subject of the post that I may have overlooked, other than the lazy 1 word "hi" or "yes" posts?
Debating religion isn't "Laid Back" an "Introduction" nor does it allow people to Get to Know You in any meaningful manner. You are restricted to the genre of post types that are described in the sections....and there is even a sticky post in the "laid back" area that says not to post controversial topics there.
Earthling
I've had a thunk and I've unrestricted you. You can carry on with this thread, here in religion, after 3 more posts as you currently have 7.
Quote from: Tank on October 26, 2011, 07:03:44 PM
Earthling
I've had a thunk and I've unrestricted you. You can carry on with this thread, here in religion, after 3 more posts as you currently have 7.
My apologies to the forum, it was a misunderstanding on my part. I suppose that I spend so much time doing this that there isn't a great deal more to discuss. It is a big part of my . . . life, for lack of a better term? ;)
My questions lead to your explanation, so really it is my fault.
I was simply interested to know more about your position, rather than to debate it for now.
Group hug!!!
;D
And happy ending! ;D
Or is it?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 26, 2011, 05:13:10 PM
My background's in archaeology, and it doesn't back up the Bible in any way shape or form. In fact it contradicts most of the OT narrative, and hasn't provided any evidence to back up the NT either. As for eyewitness testimony, the OT books were written centuries after any supposed events, and the NT books were written decades after, often 50 or more years. So I'm not sure you can say your beliefs are based on 'cold facts', but it'll be interesting to hear your take on these things.
When I think of something that can compare to the possible variations in interpretation, being subject to interpretation, next to the Bible is archaeology. Though archaeology and the Bible don't always agree, of course, in fact archaeology doesn't always agree with archaeology.
Consider Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1-30) Until the discovery of small cylinders of cuneiform in southern Iraq the Bible was the only mention of Belshazzar. The prosperity of King Salomon's time; the stela of Moab's revolution discovered in 1868 in Jordan; the Babylonian Chronicle are some examples.
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 01:50:45 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 26, 2011, 05:13:10 PM
My background's in archaeology, and it doesn't back up the Bible in any way shape or form. In fact it contradicts most of the OT narrative, and hasn't provided any evidence to back up the NT either. As for eyewitness testimony, the OT books were written centuries after any supposed events, and the NT books were written decades after, often 50 or more years. So I'm not sure you can say your beliefs are based on 'cold facts', but it'll be interesting to hear your take on these things.
When I think of something that can compare to the possible variations in interpretation, being subject to interpretation, next to the Bible is archaeology. Though archaeology and the Bible don't always agree, of course, in fact archaeology doesn't always agree with archaeology.
Consider Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1-30) Until the discovery of small cylinders of cuneiform in southern Iraq the Bible was the only mention of Belshazzar. The prosperity of King Salomon's time; the stela of Moab's revolution discovered in 1868 in Jordan; the Babylonian Chronicle are some examples.
I was thinking more the stories that were once considered historical, but which archaeology has shown are just myths, eg the Flood or the Exodus.
The Book of Daniel clearly isn't a historical book, it was most probably written some 400 years after Belshazaar lived! The fact that some stories contain the names of historical figures doesn't mean that the stories themselves are historically accurate.
As for Solomon, the Bible claims that he had a mighty empire that stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt, whereas archaeology has shown this wasn't the case, and his mighty capital at Jerusalem was probably just a small town. There's also no archaeological evidence for Solomon's temple, and archaeology suggests the Jews weren't even monotheistic in the time of Solomon.
Quote from: Earthling on October 26, 2011, 06:07:06 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 26, 2011, 01:30:18 PM
welcome Earthling, it'll be interesting to hear your take on things. Personally I don't think there's much left of Christianity if you try and remove 'pagan' influences. The same goes for Judaism too, I think both were products of their time and borrowed much of their mythology and theology from earlier external religions, cosmology and philosophy.
The nature of religion is to transmogrify the original meanings over time. You see this especially once an organized religion becomes sponsored by the state. Constantine with Christianity, for example, produced the Trinity and Cross. However, the original teachings can be seen beneath the infiltration of outside forces. Modern day Christianity is far removed from the original, of course, but it didn't borrow those influences from the start, but with much controversy and historical documentation.
I totally agree with you on this, I think that the main branches of Christianity today are based on the religion Constantine and his cronies (re)created in the fourth century. My problem is that I don't think there's anything in Judaism and Christianity that you can't trace back to earlier philosophies and religions. Even the Christian idea of God itself is very similar to that found in Greek philosophy, and the concept of a Son of God is also something we find in Hellenic religion. Plus the majority of the teachings of Jesus are found in earlier Greek philosophy too.
oh, and I'm glad you've reached your ten posts. Sorry, it was partly my fault too, I shouldn't have weighed into a debate til you'd hit your tenth post.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 01:40:30 PMI was thinking more the stories that were once considered historical, but which archaeology has shown are just myths, eg the Flood or the Exodus.
In the case of a worldwide deluge, what could we expect to see? We have indication that the oceans were smaller and continents larger, we have river channels extending out far under the oceans. It is believed that the mountains in the distant past were much lower, some mountains have been pushed up from under the seas. There is ten times as much water by volume in the oceans as there is land above sea level. If it were dumped evenly in the see the water would cover the entire earth 1 and 1/2 miles deep.
The water vapor canopy that was raised earlier in Genesis chapter 1, would have protected the inhabitants of earth from harmful radiation, resulting in shorter lifespans after the flood. The change in radiation would also have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14, invalidating all dates prior to the flood. 2 tons of water per square inch would have formed new mountains, raised old mountains to new heights, deepened shallow sea basins, created new shorelines, and fossilized fauna and flora quickly.
The canopy would have allowed for a global tropical to sub-tropical climate, the sudden devastation would have changed dramatically the climate very quickly. There would be the remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses being discovered in odd places with vegetation in their frozen mouth and stomachs. In Siberian cliffs and Alaskan ice. Lions, tigers, bears, and elk would be found in common strata indicating a simultaneous destruction.
Flood stories would spread out with the scattering of people throughout the globe. Folklore from the Chinese, Druids, Egyptians, Greeks, Eskimos, Greenlanders, Africans, Hindus, Native Americans . . .
As for the Exodus, how much archaeological evidence would one expect from a nomadic people traveling through the wilderness beginning in 1513 B.C.E. who didn't make towns, didn't establish villages.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 01:40:30 PMThe Book of Daniel clearly isn't a historical book, it was most probably written some 400 years after Belshazaar lived! The fact that some stories contain the names of historical figures doesn't mean that the stories themselves are historically accurate.
Daniel was written about 536 B.C.E. Belshazzar's rule ended on the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar / October 11 Julian calendar)
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 01:40:30 PMAs for Solomon, the Bible claims that he had a mighty empire that stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt, whereas archaeology has shown this wasn't the case, and his mighty capital at Jerusalem was probably just a small town. There's also no archaeological evidence for Solomon's temple, and archaeology suggests the Jews weren't even monotheistic in the time of Solomon.
I'm just curious, could you demonstrate how archaeology has shown these things?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 04:49:52 PMI totally agree with you on this, I think that the main branches of Christianity today are based on the religion Constantine and his cronies (re)created in the fourth century. My problem is that I don't think there's anything in Judaism and Christianity that you can't trace back to earlier philosophies and religions. Even the Christian idea of God itself is very similar to that found in Greek philosophy, and the concept of a Son of God is also something we find in Hellenic religion. Plus the majority of the teachings of Jesus are found in earlier Greek philosophy too.
While I think it is important and fairly easy to gauge the infiltration of apostasy in the history of modern Christendom, I think it becomes a great deal less important or impressive beyond that. There are all kinds of factors you have to consider. Take a vague concept like god, meaning simple "mighty; strong" and applied to anything or anyone thought to be mighty or venerated. Its not surprising that similar concepts are found elsewhere. Take something like the pagan origin of baptism, predating Christianity. Well it was used as a public declaration. Nothing inherently Christian about that. Take the common use of specific gods in the makeup of our weekly and monthly calendar, then consider the ancient Jewish calendar. Influences become vague and insubstantial, they sound a great deal more impressive than they actually are.
The same influences that resulted in the apostasy of Christianity have undoubtedly influenced pagan mythology as well. So you say you find a son of god who was born on December 25th and was crucified etc. before Christ then you discover that neither one of them actually were born at that time or crucified and there were prophecies about a son of god or certain events that were around thousands of years before Christ anyway. They were waiting for him for some time.
Speaking of time, it is often cited by skeptics as an indication that the Bible is less than what it says it is, but there are flaws in secular history far greater than that of the Bible.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 04:49:52 PMoh, and I'm glad you've reached your ten posts. Sorry, it was partly my fault too, I shouldn't have weighed into a debate til you'd hit your tenth post.
Thanks, all water under the bridge, as they say. Its all good.
So now this thread can be continued elsewhere than in the intro section. Go to it, gang!
Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:27:34 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 04:49:52 PMI totally agree with you on this, I think that the main branches of Christianity today are based on the religion Constantine and his cronies (re)created in the fourth century. My problem is that I don't think there's anything in Judaism and Christianity that you can't trace back to earlier philosophies and religions. Even the Christian idea of God itself is very similar to that found in Greek philosophy, and the concept of a Son of God is also something we find in Hellenic religion. Plus the majority of the teachings of Jesus are found in earlier Greek philosophy too.
While I think it is important and fairly easy to gauge the infiltration of apostasy in the history of modern Christendom, I think it becomes a great deal less important or impressive beyond that. There are all kinds of factors you have to consider. Take a vague concept like god, meaning simple "mighty; strong" and applied to anything or anyone thought to be mighty or venerated. Its not surprising that similar concepts are found elsewhere. Take something like the pagan origin of baptism, predating Christianity. Well it was used as a public declaration. Nothing inherently Christian about that. Take the common use of specific gods in the makeup of our weekly and monthly calendar, then consider the ancient Jewish calendar. Influences become vague and insubstantial, they sound a great deal more impressive than they actually are.
The same influences that resulted in the apostasy of Christianity have undoubtedly influenced pagan mythology as well. So you say you find a son of god who was born on December 25th and was crucified etc. before Christ then you discover that neither one of them actually were born at that time or crucified and there were prophecies about a son of god or certain events that were around thousands of years before Christ anyway. They were waiting for him for some time.
I just don't know what part of Judaism or Christianity was original and wasn't influenced by earlier external religions and philosophies. Could you give me some examples? Judaism itself evolved out of Canaanite religion.
Thus I also don't see any 'apostasy' in Christianity, or any real division between Christian, Jew and 'pagan'. These are false divisions created by Christains who tried to claim their god was somehow different from all the other gods. For me they're all theists worshipping different gods, but all using the same mythology, cosmology and philosophy to underpin their beliefs.
QuoteQuote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 06:43:24 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 01:40:30 PMI was thinking more the stories that were once considered historical, but which archaeology has shown are just myths, eg the Flood or the Exodus.
In the case of a worldwide deluge, what could we expect to see? We have indication that the oceans were smaller and continents larger, we have river channels extending out far under the oceans. It is believed that the mountains in the distant past were much lower, some mountains have been pushed up from under the seas. There is ten times as much water by volume in the oceans as there is land above sea level. If it were dumped evenly in the see the water would cover the entire earth 1 and 1/2 miles deep.
The water vapor canopy that was raised earlier in Genesis chapter 1, would have protected the inhabitants of earth from harmful radiation, resulting in shorter lifespans after the flood. The change in radiation would also have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14, invalidating all dates prior to the flood. 2 tons of water per square inch would have formed new mountains, raised old mountains to new heights, deepened shallow sea basins, created new shorelines, and fossilized fauna and flora quickly.
The canopy would have allowed for a global tropical to sub-tropical climate, the sudden devastation would have changed dramatically the climate very quickly. There would be the remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses being discovered in odd places with vegetation in their frozen mouth and stomachs. In Siberian cliffs and Alaskan ice. Lions, tigers, bears, and elk would be found in common strata indicating a simultaneous destruction.
Flood stories would spread out with the scattering of people throughout the globe. Folklore from the Chinese, Druids, Egyptians, Greeks, Eskimos, Greenlanders, Africans, Hindus, Native Americans . . .
You seriously believe in the Flood? ::) And that archaeological evidence supports there being a flood? I have a degree in archaeology, and to be totally honest with you, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I don't think you'll find a reputable archaeologist in the whole world who'd agree with you. There's absolutely no archaeological evidence to support the theory of a worldwide deluge.
We can trace the myth back to ancient Mesopotamia in the second / third millennium BCE. There's no evidence for it being much older than that. The Jews borrowed the myth from earlier religions / cultures. Do you believe the flood happened then? Are you a young earth creationist? Do you believe that the Earth is flat (the writers of the earliest parts of Genesis did)?
Even if you do seriously believe there was a worldwide global deluge 4000 odd years ago, how do you know it was your god who caused it? According to the Greeks, Zeus sent the Flood, not Yahweh. You're basing your beliefs on one piece of mythology but ignoring other mythologies which are no less valid.
QuoteAs for the Exodus, how much archaeological evidence would one expect from a nomadic people traveling through the wilderness beginning in 1513 B.C.E. who didn't make towns, didn't establish villages.
Given that these wanderings supposedly happened in a desert, where archaeological evidence is notoriously good for surviving due to the very hot, dry conditions, I would expect some evidence of the forty year wonderings of 600,000 people!
Many records survive from ancient Egypt, so I would also expect some record of 6000,000 Israelites leaving Egypt, or some evidence of them ever having been there in the first place. But there is none, absolute sweet FA. It's been estimated that this would have been 20-25% of the population of ancient Egypt at the time, surely you would expect some record of their presence in Egypt.
But back to archaeology, it's shown that the Exodus story is a total fabrication without historical basis. Excavations at Jericho have shown that during the Early Iron Age (1200 - 1000 BCE), the city had been largely deserted and in a state of ruin for some 300 years. More importantly, no city walls had been present at this time, and the fall of the walls of Jericho is one of the most famous parts of the biblical story of the conquest of Canaan. The same is true of Ai, which the Israelites also conquered in the biblical account. This settlement wasn't occupied during the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE), and had been deserted for more than 1000 years at the time of the supposed conquest of Canaan.
We are also told of the Israelites' stay in Pithom, but the town was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1600 BCE), only to be reoccupied at the beginning of the 6th Century BCE. The Israelites also spent 'a long time' at Kadesh, yet excavations have shown that the site was first occupied in the 10th Century BCE.
Plus Egypt controlled the Levant in the supposed time of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan, but the writers of the Exodus are clearly unaware of this fact. Why? Because the story was created centuries later.
On top of this, the earliest known fragments of the Exodus story are in the Dead Sea scrolls, dating to the first century BCE. It's generally considered to have been written sometime around the seventh century BCE, some 900 years after the dates you're talking about.
QuoteQuote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 01:40:30 PMThe Book of Daniel clearly isn't a historical book, it was most probably written some 400 years after Belshazaar lived! The fact that some stories contain the names of historical figures doesn't mean that the stories themselves are historically accurate.
Daniel was written about 536 B.C.E. Belshazzar's rule ended on the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar / October 11 Julian calendar)
That's not the generally accepted view, which dates it to the second century BCE. We'll just have to differ on the date of the book's composition. You might want to check out the generally accepted dates for when the Old Testament was most probably written here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Torah
QuoteQuote from: Too Few Lions on October 27, 2011, 01:40:30 PMAs for Solomon, the Bible claims that he had a mighty empire that stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt, whereas archaeology has shown this wasn't the case, and his mighty capital at Jerusalem was probably just a small town. There's also no archaeological evidence for Solomon's temple, and archaeology suggests the Jews weren't even monotheistic in the time of Solomon.
I'm just curious, could you demonstrate how archaeology has shown these things?
You're probably not going to like what's written in it, but I'd advise you to buy and read a copy of 'The Bible Unearthed' for starters;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
Then you might start to realise just how much the archaeological evidence contradicts the myths in the Bible.
As for the Jews being monotheistic, there's archaeological evidence showing they were still polytheistic as late as the sixth century BCE, and possibly as late as the second century BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#In_Israel_and_Judah