TARGET Unveils Pride Collection That Includes LGBT Rainbow Onesies For Newborns

[ClearwaterVol]

keeping with OP's subject --

The Covenant of the Rainbow, Genesis 9
13I have set My rainbow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

14Whenever I form clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15I will remember My covenant between Me and you and every living creature of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.

​

Quoting the Bible as support for its accuracy is absurd.

 

[UT-Rex]

Quoting the Bible as support for its accuracy is absurd.

You're referencing uses of the rainbow. I referenced the usage as per Moses (in Genesis).

Now that is pure unadulterated bullsh!t. Rainbows appear in mythology far before Genesis. You keep citing 3000BCE, but most scholars seem to place that date as more likely at 1500BCE or later.

 

[UT-Rex]

Quoting the Bible as support for its accuracy is absurd.

Back to "Why do you believe" 101 --

b. you asked (and then you label as "absurd" when someone quotes the source)

a. the ... rainbow ... was established as ... a token ... for all of MANKIND ... centuries prior to the birth of Israel and millennia prior to the birth of the Christian Church << Christians have a right to point this out to everyone (including ourselves).

Far more likely story is that it simply a way of explaining something which was not understood.

Just about every religion most of which predate Christianity have rainbows featured in their mythologies. Why do you believe Christianity has some right to claim it as a symbol when they are simply perverting a symbol they’ve co-opted from earlier religions?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Back to "Why do you believe" 101 --

b. you asked (and then you label as "absurd" when someone quotes the source)

a. the ... rainbow ... was established as ... a token ... for all of MANKIND ... centuries prior to the birth of Israel and millennia prior to the birth of the Christian Church << Christians have a right to point this out to everyone (including ourselves).

Independent verification of sourcing.

Prior to its appearance in the book of Genesis the rainbow was important in various other mythologies for several thousand years. In support of your position, you then say well Genesis said this was the real story and it tells us that it happened before your stories.

You don’t see how absurd that is?

 

[UT-Rex]

Independent verification of sourcing.

Prior to its appearance in the book of Genesis the rainbow was important in various other mythologies for several thousand years. In support of your position, you then say well Genesis said this was the real story and it tells us that it happened before your stories.

You don’t see how absurd that is?

"Independent" (sourcing) ? ?

1000's of Israelites can testify to the truth of God establishing (b) Passover and (a) Rainbow in skies --

(b) Exodus 12:15For seven days you must eat unleavened bread.
17So you are to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread,e for on this very day I brought your divisions out of the land of Egypt. You must keep this day as a permanent statute for the generations to come.
23When the LORD passes through to strike down the Egyptians, He will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway; so He will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.



(a) Genesis 9:8Then God said to Noah and his sons with him, 9“Behold, I now establish My covenant with you and your descendants after you, 10and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth—every living thing that came out of the ark. 11And I establish My covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13I have set My rainbow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

 

[UT-Rex]

Independent verification of sourcing.

Prior to its appearance in the book of Genesis the rainbow was important in various other mythologies for several thousand years. In support of your position, you then say well Genesis said this was the real story and it tells us that it happened before your stories.

You don’t see how absurd that is?

Just as Abraham lived and died before Moses was born,

the events of the Flood and (subsequent) Rainbow covenant occurred hundreds of years before Moses wrote about them in Genesis 9.

 

[LargeOrange1]

What's next, a black mermaid?

Naaaa.....even Disney wouldn't go that far. Ohhhh wait a minute.....

 

[Matt2496]

@UT-Rex

You could just answer yes or no. It seems like you're dodging the question.

If you’ve read his posts in the Bible thread, you would know that dodging questions and giving vague non-answers is his MO.

 

[LargeOrange1]

Homosexuality has always existed, and not just in the human species. Male and female pairing is and will continue to be the most prevalent form of adult sexual bonding. To teach kids that male and female bonding is the ONLY biological form of bonding is not true to reality.

I teach my children / grandchildren what I believe. There are 2 genders. That is a biological fact. If my child / grandchild is homosexual, I will love them unconditionally and accept that. I don't need drag Queens or Target to raise my children / grandchildren.

 

[UT-Rex]

If you’ve read his posts in the Bible thread, you would know that dodging questions and giving vague non-answers is his MO.

I've directly reminded him that behemoth and leviathan coexisted with man (if he wants to call them dinosaurs / great lizard / Iguanodon , or what, so be it -- obviously, book of Job describes behemoth and leviathan as some type of large animal and scientists have found large bones (the elephant and whale have large bones and teeth)).

17His tail sways like a cedar; .... << this sounds something like a large lizard or dragon (aka by some as some type of dinosaur).

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I've directly reminded him that behemoth and leviathan coexisted with man (if he wants to call them dinosaurs / great lizard / Iguanodon , or what, so be it -- obviously, book of Job describes behemoth and leviathan as some type of large animal and scientists have found large bones (the elephant and whale have large bones and teeth)).

17His tail sways like a cedar; .... << this sounds something like a large lizard or dragon (aka by some as some type of dinosaur).

Largest reptilian we've coexisted with was possibly the Megalania... hardly any sort of behemoth.

There's scientific evidence beyond that of carbon dating (though I see why you don't "believe" in it as it disproves hairbrained theories such as the one you are positing) which proves that all manner of dinosaur have existed, and that absolutely none of them shared residence with man.

 

[UT-Rex]

Independent verification of sourcing.

Prior to its appearance in the book of Genesis the rainbow was important in various other mythologies for several thousand years. In support of your position, you then say well Genesis said this was the real story and it tells us that it happened before your stories.

You don’t see how absurd that is?

context, sourcing --

the eyewitness knew the grandeur of the then-cedar (even today, we have trees 200'+ tall)


Job 40:15Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you.
17 His tail sways like a cedar;

1 Kings 7:1Solomon, however, took thirteen years to complete the construction of his entire palace.

2He built the House of the Forest of Lebanon a hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high,a with four rows of cedar pillars supporting the cedar beams.

3The house was roofed with cedar above the beams that rested on the pillars—forty-five beams, fifteen per row. 4There were three rows of high windows facing one another in three tiers. 5All the doorwaysb had rectangular frames, with the openings facing one another in three tiers.

6Solomon made his colonnade fifty cubits long and thirty cubits wide,c with a portico in front of it and a canopy with pillars in front of the portico.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

I believe in a 1-6 and 7th day timeframe (as did Moses and Joshua ; as did Jesus and Peter and Paul). I believe carbon dating is inaccurate.

As a former Young Earth Creationist, myself, the problem with YEC is that, not only do you have to argue that Carbon Dating is wrong, but also all other dating methods are off by orders of magnitude.

The typical YEC explanation is the Flood caused everything in regards to affecting dating methods, causing thousands of species to go extinct, even so far as to creating the craters on the moon, but that is such a simplistic, catch-all answer.

I’m a true skeptic, as I am unconvinced by both religious AND scientific dogmas. Uniformitarianism and naturalistic Darwinian Evolution both have significant issues, but those issues pale to the scientific, logical, and moral problems of those who assent to Young Earth Creationism. YEC is so literal in its understanding of Genesis that it puts reason in a straightjacket.

1. Why ascribe to literal creation days? The Christian theologian St. Augustine argued for metaphorical days because he believed that God, being omnipotent, could create everything instantaneously, not needing a duration of time or pre-existent materials. According to Genesis, the Sun & heavenly bodies were created on Day 4, so the literal understanding of a day would have no meaning for the first 3 “days” of creation.

2. Not only dinosaurs, but thousands of species of other megafauna have gone extinct over the course of the Earth’s existence. If the purpose of the Ark was to preserve species (or “kinds”), why would God allow for so many of his direct creations to become extinct in the YEC view?

3. The primary problem with YEC is that it wants to explain ALL death & suffering as a consequence of Man’s Fall, of Adam & Eve’s sin. That the world was perfect until Man introduces pain via wrongdoing. To do this, they have to compress the world timeline to such a degree that all death (animal & human) take place after the creation and disobedience of Man. Heck, not even just death, but any imperfection in Creation (craters on the Moon, for instance). YEC literalists are reading Genesis through a Platonic lens, except in their understanding the original physical world is the perfect “form.”

In their desire for literalism, YEC fanatics not only disregard science, they also rob the Genesis creation narrative of its soul.

 

[UT-Rex]

As a former Young Earth Creationist, myself, the problem with YEC is that, not only do you have to argue that Carbon Dating is wrong, but also all other dating methods are off by orders of magnitude.

The typical YEC explanation is the Flood caused everything in regards to affecting dating methods, causing thousands of species to go extinct, even so far as to creating the craters on the moon, but that is such a simplistic, catch-all answer.

I’m a true skeptic, as I am unconvinced by both religious AND scientific dogmas. Uniformitarianism and naturalistic Darwinian Evolution both have significant issues, but those issues pale to the scientific, logical, and moral problems of those who assent to Young Earth Creationism. YEC is so literal in its understanding of Genesis that it puts reason in a straightjacket.

1. Why ascribe to literal creation days? The Christian theologian St. Augustine argued for metaphorical days because he believed that God, being omnipotent, could create everything instantaneously, not needing a duration of time or pre-existent materials. According to Genesis, the Sun & heavenly bodies were created on Day 4, so the literal understanding of a day would have no meaning for the first 3 “days” of creation.

2. Not only dinosaurs, but thousands of species of other megafauna have gone extinct over the course of the Earth’s existence. If the purpose of the Ark was to preserve species (or “kinds”), why would God allow for so many of his direct creations to become extinct in the YEC view?

3. The primary problem with YEC is that it wants to explain ALL death & suffering as a consequence of Man’s Fall, of Adam & Eve’s sin. That the world was perfect until Man introduces pain via wrongdoing. To do this, they have to compress the world timeline to such a degree that all death (animal & human) take place after the creation and disobedience of Man. Heck, not even just death, but any imperfection in Creation (craters on the Moon, for instance). YEC literalists are reading Genesis through a Platonic lens, except in their understanding the original physical world is the perfect “form.”

In their desire for literalism, YEC fanatics not only disregard science, they also rob the Genesis creation narrative of its soul.

That you are former, is your decision.

All Christians need to pay attention and remain aware, that Jesus expressly spoke of the beginning / creation (Genesis 1-2 ; this of course includes days 1-7):

Mark 10:5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’b

 

[UT-Rex]

In their desire for literalism, YEC fanatics not only disregard science, they also rob the Genesis creation narrative of its soul.

Reminder, that Jesus referred to the same Genesis creation narrative (he's referring to day 6) --

Mark 10:5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’b

It's the same wording (from the = in the ; God made = God created) :

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

That you are former, is your decision.

All Christians need to pay attention and remain aware, that Jesus expressly spoke of the beginning / creation (Genesis 1-2):

Mark 10:5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’b

Au contraire, was no “decision” at all—one cannot persist in a belief if they are confronted with data that overturns one’s beliefs. That is like trying to still believe in Santa Claus after you saw your parents put the gifts from him under the tree. I’m a former Calvinist, as well, but I still retain much from that soteriology; namely, that ours wills are not free. Belief is not a light switch you can turn on & off—that switch is made for you.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

Reminder, that Jesus referred to the same Genesis creation narrative (he's referring to day 6) --

Mark 10:5But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’b

It's the same wording (from the = in the ; God made = God created) :

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Rather presumptuous to just assume that Jesus adhered exactly to the interpretation you are placing here.

Again, you are assuming that the “modern” understanding of Genesis as literal history is how the ancients and Jesus understood it. The problem is, the ancients didn’t adhere to a modern, scientific understanding of the world when crafting explanatory myths. The purpose of Genesis wasn’t to give the ancient Israelites a “play-by-play” of Creation, but to explain who they are, who Yahweh is, their purpose in His plan, and also to differentiate Him from the deities of surrounding people.

 

[GVF]

I'll just bluntly ask you this...

Do you believe that dinosaurs existed and, if so, do you believe they existed among mankind?

Quite a few references to giants in the old testament. Only seems natural they'd need bigger animals to eat.

 

[UT-Rex]

Rather presumptuous to just assume that Jesus adhered exactly to the interpretation you are placing here.

Again, you are assuming that the “modern” understanding of Genesis as literal history is how the ancients and Jesus understood it. The problem is, the ancients didn’t adhere to a modern, scientific understanding of the world when crafting explanatory myths. The purpose of Genesis wasn’t to give the ancient Israelites a “play-by-play” of Creation, but to explain who they are, who Yahweh is, their purpose in His plan, and also to differentiate Him from the deities of surrounding people.

Back to the subject: Genesis 9:14Whenever I form clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember My covenant between Me and you and every living creature of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.

^^ these words, bound to the hearts of believers

You're speaking history and world religion 101 (the Israelites dealt with / intermingled with every world power, mocker and unbeliver of the day (Egyptian Pharoah, Philistines et al) --

obviously, certain people might be stubborn about and refuse it, but other people certainly understand the meaning of 7 days (days 1-6 and day 7) of the week

Deuteronomy 6: 4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One.a 5And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.b

6 These words I am commanding you today are to be upon your hearts. 7And you shall teach them diligently to your children and speak of them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8Tie them as reminders on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9Write them on the doorposts of your houses and on your gates.

10And when the LORD your God brings you into the land He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that He would give you—a land with great and splendid cities that you did not build, 11with houses full of every good thing with which you did not fill them, with wells that you did not dig, and with vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant—and when you eat and are satisfied, 12be careful not to forget the LORD who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

As a former Young Earth Creationist, myself, the problem with YEC is that, not only do you have to argue that Carbon Dating is wrong, but also all other dating methods are off by orders of magnitude.

The typical YEC explanation is the Flood caused everything in regards to affecting dating methods, causing thousands of species to go extinct, even so far as to creating the craters on the moon, but that is such a simplistic, catch-all answer.

I’m a true skeptic, as I am unconvinced by both religious AND scientific dogmas. Uniformitarianism and naturalistic Darwinian Evolution both have significant issues, but those issues pale to the scientific, logical, and moral problems of those who assent to Young Earth Creationism. YEC is so literal in its understanding of Genesis that it puts reason in a straightjacket.

1. Why ascribe to literal creation days? The Christian theologian St. Augustine argued for metaphorical days because he believed that God, being omnipotent, could create everything instantaneously, not needing a duration of time or pre-existent materials. According to Genesis, the Sun & heavenly bodies were created on Day 4, so the literal understanding of a day would have no meaning for the first 3 “days” of creation.

2. Not only dinosaurs, but thousands of species of other megafauna have gone extinct over the course of the Earth’s existence. If the purpose of the Ark was to preserve species (or “kinds”), why would God allow for so many of his direct creations to become extinct in the YEC view?

3. The primary problem with YEC is that it wants to explain ALL death & suffering as a consequence of Man’s Fall, of Adam & Eve’s sin. That the world was perfect until Man introduces pain via wrongdoing. To do this, they have to compress the world timeline to such a degree that all death (animal & human) take place after the creation and disobedience of Man. Heck, not even just death, but any imperfection in Creation (craters on the Moon, for instance). YEC literalists are reading Genesis through a Platonic lens, except in their understanding the original physical world is the perfect “form.”

In their desire for literalism, YEC fanatics not only disregard science, they also rob the Genesis creation narrative of its soul.

Well said.

 

[UT-Rex]

Rather presumptuous to just assume that Jesus adhered exactly to the interpretation you are placing here.

Again, you are assuming that the “modern” understanding of Genesis as literal history is how the ancients and Jesus understood it. The problem is, the ancients didn’t adhere to a modern, scientific understanding of the world when crafting explanatory myths. The purpose of Genesis wasn’t to give the ancient Israelites a “play-by-play” of Creation, but to explain who they are, who Yahweh is, their purpose in His plan, and also to differentiate Him from the deities of surrounding people.

Perhaps you do know the modern understanding of land disputes in the Middle East (as to why God drove the then-current residents from the lands) -- well, here is the origin (Moses also wrote about the rainbow and the 7 days of the week of creation)

Leviticus 18:22You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.
24Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for by all these things the nations I am driving out before you have defiled themselves. 25Even the land has become defiled, so I am punishing it for its sin, and the land will vomit out its inhabitants.

Dueteronomy 6:10And when the LORD your God brings you into the land He swore to your fathers,
:26But you are to keep My statutes and ordinances, and you must not commit any of these abominations—neither your native-born nor the foreigner who lives among you.

(note: the subject is rainbow origin and certain abominable lifestyles, in relation to Genesis which you reference)

 

[UT-Rex]

Rather presumptuous to just assume that Jesus adhered exactly to the interpretation you are placing here.

Again, you are assuming that the “modern” understanding of Genesis as literal history is how the ancients and Jesus understood it. The problem is, the ancients didn’t adhere to a modern, scientific understanding of the world when crafting explanatory myths. The purpose of Genesis wasn’t to give the ancient Israelites a “play-by-play” of Creation, but to explain who they are, who Yahweh is, their purpose in His plan, and also to differentiate Him from the deities of surrounding people.

Tell us: which of the deities you speak of, ever said something such as this (what did they say / to whom / what approx timetable) --

a) Leviticus 18:22You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.
24Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for by all these things the nations I am driving out before you have defiled themselves. 25Even the land has become defiled, so I am punishing it for its sin, and the land will vomit out its inhabitants.

b) Matthew 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

^^ now, when we start studying this Matthew 3:17, we get into the nature of John 3:16 (which days ago was posted on TV behind the field goals / remember) = Love.

 

[UT-Rex]

Rather presumptuous to just assume that Jesus adhered exactly to the interpretation you are placing here.

Again, you are assuming that the “modern” understanding of Genesis as literal history is how the ancients and Jesus understood it. The problem is, the ancients didn’t adhere to a modern, scientific understanding of the world when crafting explanatory myths. The purpose of Genesis wasn’t to give the ancient Israelites a “play-by-play” of Creation, but to explain who they are, who Yahweh is, their purpose in His plan, and also to differentiate Him from the deities of surrounding people.

^ you're speaking real world religions 101 -- here is a real, specific example (Elijah, prophet of God vs the prophets of Baal)

1 Kings 18:22Then Elijah said to the people, “I am the only remaining prophet of the LORD, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23Get two bulls for us. Let the prophets of Baal choose one bull for themselves, cut it into pieces, and place it on the wood but not light the fire. And I will prepare the other bull and place it on the wood but not light the fire. 24Then you may call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The God who answers by fire, He is God.”


25Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Since you are so numerous, choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first. Then call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.”
26And they took the bull that was given them, prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon, shouting, “O Baal, answer us!”
But there was no sound, and no one answered as they leaped around the altar they had made.
27At noon Elijah began to taunt them, saying, “Shout louder, for he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or occupied, or on a journey. Perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened!”
28So they shouted louder and cut themselves with knives and lances, as was their custom, until the blood gushed over them.

30Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” So all the people approached him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD that had been torn down.
31And Elijah took twelve stones, one for each tribe of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come and said, “Israel shall be your name.” 32And with the stones, Elijah built an altar in the name of the LORD. Then he dug a trench around the altar large enough to hold two seahs of seed.b
36At the time of the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet approached the altar and said, “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel and that I am Your servant and have done all these things at Your command. 37Answer me, O LORD! Answer me, so that this people will know that You, the LORD, are God, and that You have turned their hearts back again.”
38Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and it licked up the water in the trench.
39When all the people saw this, they fell facedown and said, “The LORD, He is God! The LORD, He is God!”

 

[Gandalf]

I think in the Christian/Evolutionary theory I tend to hold similar thoughts as CS Lewis (surely no surprise there, eh?):

We must sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth. […] To the biologist Evolution […] covers more of the facts than any other hypothesis at present on the market and is therefore to be accepted unless, or until, some new supposal can be shown to cover still more facts with even fewer assumptions.

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.

From what I have seen, Faith speaks to the source of creation, while Science speaks to the process of creation. If I were to create a painting, I would still have a process of its making. Even though I believe Creatio ex nihilo is the beginning, the form we find it today is derivative and that process is not magical but rather measurable. The mundane and miracles can and do co-exist, both originating from the same Source but one a system with rules, the other existing outside of those rules. God has spoken, and His word, once spoken still caries through void, empowering its intent. And yet, we also believe He still speaks - when we have ears to listen.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

Tell us: which of the deities you speak of, ever said something such as this (what did they say / to whom / what approx timetable) --

a) Leviticus 18:22You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.
24Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for by all these things the nations I am driving out before you have defiled themselves. 25Even the land has become defiled, so I am punishing it for its sin, and the land will vomit out its inhabitants.

b) Matthew 3:17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

^^ now, when we start studying this Matthew 3:17, we get into the nature of John 3:16 (which days ago was posted on TV behind the field goals / remember) = Love.

Ah, yes, God drove out the Canaanites for the Israelites, but then allowed them to be conquered by the grotesquely brutal Assyrians (Northern Kingdom) and then Babylonians (Judah). Then He allowed the Jews to be ruled by the Greeks & Romans, both peoples quite fond of homosexual acts. Then the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple. All the while, the Scriptures put the blame on the Israelites and their sins for why they were conquered by peoples far more vicious than they.

At what point does that simply become a historical, propagandistic excuse for why Yahweh didn’t protect the Israelites? And that perhaps the concept of the Messiah was a wish-fulfillment dream? And that maybe when the establishment of a real Davidic kingdom was destroyed, the concept of Messiah evolved?

You quote Scripture as authoritative, but never establish the grounds for why we should accept it as such. Why, in the theater of competing scriptures vying to be God’s Word, should we understand the Bible to be so, AND also that the interpretation you espouse is, indeed, the correct one?