bible pagan god yahweh's babylonian p...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#285 Jun 11, 2012
oops wrong line, meant for an xian abuser sing the 'holy book'to clear himselve.
SamBee

Orlando, FL

#286 Jul 20, 2012
Gregory wrote:
One very good citation is the Brown/Driver/Briggs Hebrew Lexicon under Hawah, under which the name YHWH appears and from which this lexicon derives YHWH (you have to be able to read Hebrew in order to use this lexicon). If you study the usage of Ehyeh in the Hebrew Bible, it is never used as a proper name. Also, the word hayah is a later form of hawah.
And, I've been studying this topic (and have been able to read Hebrew) for several years.
Yes, Hauah/Hawah is the prim root for HaYah. HaYah is a verb it is first used in Genesis 1:3 "Let there be light".

Yahuah is Great...

1933 hava' haw-vaw' or havah {haw-vaw'}; a primitive root (Compare 183, 1961) supposed to mean properly, to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence):--be, X have.

1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall,+ follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

183 'avah aw-vaw' a primitive root; to wish for:--covet,(greatly) desire, be desirous, long, lust (after).
grun

Pretoria, South Africa

#287 Oct 10, 2012
May I point out Hosea 2:16 wherein it is said that Israel will no longer call Him Baal. Another thing, also in the bible you know where it says that the path to righteousness is small and thin while the path to certain decay is wide and there are many who find it. Now google how many christians there are in the world and of how many people do you know that use this name. Just a question

“Identity by Faith”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#288 Nov 2, 2012
it doesnt matter who worshipped which God and when, because its still the same One God..

“Identity by Faith”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#289 Nov 2, 2012
grun wrote:
May I point out Hosea 2:16 wherein it is said that Israel will no longer call Him Baal. Another thing, also in the bible you know where it says that the path to righteousness is small and thin while the path to certain decay is wide and there are many who find it. Now google how many christians there are in the world and of how many people do you know that use this name. Just a question
Well said, its the idea applied to those 'rightly guided peoples' mentioned in the Quran (im muslim) among different people of different times. The rightly guided people arent diametrically defined by what they say they follow but what and how they follow a certain Truth.
Enlighten

Merrylands, Australia

#290 Nov 3, 2012
Light Upon Light wrote:
it doesnt matter who worshipped which God and when, because its still the same One God..
Your dark upon darkness philosophical approach of generic god's as being one god might be fine if it was not for the name god being derived from the Canaanite pagan diety Fortune. Hence you are incorrect, there is one creator in monolithic belief and no opposites. When you talk about god it has two pagan themes of good verses evil, heaven and hell. The monolithic creator is Aten!

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#291 Nov 6, 2012
Enlighten wrote:
<quoted text>
Your dark upon darkness philosophical approach of generic god's as being one god might be fine if it was not for the name god being derived from the Canaanite pagan diety Fortune. Hence you are incorrect, there is one creator in monolithic belief and no opposites. When you talk about god it has two pagan themes of good verses evil, heaven and hell. The monolithic creator is Aten!
Wait, I thought that Aten was the name of the giant space turtle that carried Discworld in the fantasy novels...
Enlighten

Zetland, Australia

#292 Nov 24, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, I thought that Aten was the name of the giant space turtle that carried Discworld in the fantasy novels...
Mock now as it will be the last you will have when Aten will appear to this world for final judgement of humanity.

“IAM4YHWH”

Since: May 08

Richmond, Indiana

#294 Dec 3, 2012
"The knowledge of Him [Yahweh] did not come from Egypt. A God who conquered the gods of Egypt cannot have been of Egyptian origin Himself, and Hebrew religion, which began with the service of one God only and culminated in definite monotheism, has no real affinity with the pantheistic tendencies of Egyptian idolatry. We cannot gain much light upon he subject from the cuneiform inscriptions of Babylonia. Lately much discussion has arisen in the discovery of three clay tablets said to contain one, if not three, proper names, meaning "Yah is God." The tablet belongs to the age of Hammarabi, about 2250 B.C., and are not Babylonian, but Canaanite or Hebrew. The translation is questionable, and "Yahwe," not "Ya," is the primary form of the divine name as the use of the Hebrew language and the occurrence of the name "Yahwe" on Mesha's stone show, so that a derivation for the Babylonian god Ea is impossible, and we shall do well to acquiesce in Dr. Driver's judgment that the names are yet too isolated to admit of any confident inference. Besides, even id we know that the names on the tablets meant "Ya is God," we should still be quite in the dark as to the connection between this use of the name in remote antiquity and its subsequent history." - SOURCE: Hebrew Religion To The Establishment Of Judaism Under Ezra By W. E. Addis, M. A., Crown Theological Library Vol. XVI, pp. 67-68, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, London: Williams And Norgate.
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/YHWH.html
Master Atheist

Okayama, Japan

#295 Jan 9, 2013
Wow! For goodness sake don't let serious research and knowledge get in the way of your idiotic and childish belief systems. Raul is right, yahwehwehweh was just another local god that a local king decided was to be the only god in order to cement his new kingdom together. The original yahwehwehweh had a wife and the Israelites certainly worshiped other gods whose names appear in their records. The fact that none of these gods ever existed seems to have bypassed your tiny minds and left you worshiping nothing at all. What a bunch of ill-educated, retarded morons.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#296 Jan 11, 2013
grun wrote:
May I point out Hosea 2:16 wherein it is said that Israel will no longer call Him Baal. Another thing, also in the bible you know where it says that the path to righteousness is small and thin while the path to certain decay is wide and there are many who find it. Now google how many christians there are in the world and of how many people do you know that use this name. Just a question
1.) Baal was also used to mean 'lord'. Just as ashera meant generically 'lady'. So the bible using 'lord 'allavro would be in opposition to the school of Hosea.
2.)'Gawd' that led to god as far as we've surmised, used to be the enemy of yhwh.

The only interesting sources are indeed those old inscriptions and at that they need to be properly spelled in the translitteration.
Gregory has a tendency to confuse akkadian with hebrew.(We get assured some letter got substituted...and the search leads nowhere! Nor do we get a source.)

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#297 Jan 11, 2013
Looking at the Assyrian dictionary however we get:
A and/conj. AU... or more intelligible: UA-lord/leader... and A.
Att-u: to me/ me.
So you can call me"'to/and me lord'.
Normally lord of lords would be : bil bili.
God(s):ul, ulu.
But <hYH could be a long spelling of Uu Aa or v.v.

A different way of looking at it would be that the MESHA STELE and various other forms found, form the title:'milord'.
So the misplaced respect that makes christians translate all god nametitles into variations of 'lord', might thus have a solid base.

DONALD LANE

Port Lavaca, TX

#298 Jan 26, 2013
THIS IS WHY HE TOLD THE ISRAELITES THAT HIS NAME IS I AM THAT I AM IN EXODUS FOREVER THROUGH OUT ALL GENERATIONS.WE SIMPLE DID NOT LISTEN ARE BELIEVE HIM SO MAN HAS TRIED TO DECEIVE US OH! BY THE WAT THE JEWISH AND CATHOLICS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRANSLATION.AHAYAH ASHER AHAYAH, THE NAME THEY ARE AFRAID OF AND HID RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES. SHALOM
DONALD LANE

Port Lavaca, TX

#299 Jan 26, 2013
come on people please research real history and stop believing this rewritten history, that has been pushed at us,there is a book out on amazon if you want to know what has happened to the church please by it,shed alot of light on these people.illuminat2 deceit and seduction,by henry makow.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#300 Jan 27, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Well Donald i do not know how real your research is, but i've come upon some tough linguistic sources.
e.g. the first word BR>, can allready have 22 different interpretations.
But now there is a good 2008 disertation on Anatolian language, and that is where we find f.i. the is(sa)ra/i of the Merneptah stele, written in the same way, and in the neo-Hittite variant *g'esr 'hand',
that should put us in mind of Gezher.

I also found an old book 1898 were we find the destruction or a match with Israel discarded because the calculation for the Exodus did not compute with events as described on the Merneptah stele.
(On a par with the mistaken notion that jewish/Hittite/Ugariths remnant slaves build khufus pyramid. In stead of moving events up to hittite times and the time of the priestly revolt when Ramses city was moved to a different place where the river still flowed.
This would bring us into the 10th century.)
Well we have actual archeology that does shift things forward. f.i. Finkelstein.
But for the longest time this field was not explored because a.o. of such idelogical objections being thrown up.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#301 Jan 27, 2013

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#302 Jan 27, 2013
http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/genesis-11/
genesis 1:1 is meant.

While most translations agree that the translation of Genesis 1:1 should read,“In the beginning…” the (Jewish) JPS translation offers instead,“When God began to create…” And the NLT and some others offer a footnote with that possibility. What’s going on?

The answer dates back 1,000 years to Rashi. He notes that the usual word for “in the beginning” would be barishona. And he further notes that b’reishit is never used except preceding a noun to mean “at the beginning of.”

He therefore concludes that Genesis 1:1 does not say that creation took place “in the beginning,” but rather that it was “in the beginning of” creation that the first part of the story takes place. That is, the earth was in disarray when God began to create.

Rashi’s analysis gives us,“When God began to create,” or (as the translation in Artscroll’s Rashi edition has it)“In the beginning of God’s creating.”

Rashi’s analysis has at least two kinds of problems.

The first is a matter of detail. For his analysis to work, he needs the verb bara to be a participle, though it’s unclear how that’s possible. Secondly, he needs the “and” of “and the earth was…” to mean “when.” That one is possible, though unlikely.

The second kind of problem, though, is methodological.

Rashi is right that b’reishit is never used except before a noun, but there are only four other times the word is used, all of them in Jeremiah, and all of them before words having to do with “kingdom” or “reign.” This is hardly a large enough sample to deduce what b’reishit means.(The same reasoning would force bara to mean something about kingdoms.)

Rashi’s point is actually more generally about reishit.(The b- prefix means “in/when/at/etc.”) But here, too, he runs into problems, wrongly assuming that a word is the sum of its parts.

Furthermore, while Rashi is correct that barishona means “at first,” that doesn’t really have much bearing on what b’reishit means. Perhaps the two words are nearly synonymous, for example. Or maybe barishona means “at first” in the sense of “the first time around” while b’reishit means “at first” in the sense of “the first and only time around.”(I just met someone who introduces his wife as his “first wife.” She is his first, only, and last wife.)

All of which is to say that Rashi’s commentary here is interesting — and it explains the JPS translation — but I don’t think it helps figure out what the first words of the Bible originally meant.

I have more on Genesis 1:1 here, here, and here.

July 19, 2010 Posted by Joel H.| translation practice | Bible, Bible translation, Genesis 1:1, JPS, NLT, Rashi, translation | 11 Comments

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#303 Jan 27, 2013
Professor Ellen van Wolde’s recent paper on Genesis has captured significant attention for claiming that the Hebrew bara ought to be translated as “divided.” That is:
Met andere woorden, onze conclusie is dat het woord bara niet ‘scheppen’, maar ‘scheiden’ betekent.
I’ve already pointed out why I don’t think she can be correct, but I did so with the caveat that I hadn’t read her work. A reader pointed me to a PDF of her paper, so now, having read it, I’m able to offer this brief review.(I think I’ve got it right. It’s not so easy for me to read Dutch.)
The Evidence
Van Wolde’s evidence that bara means “separate,” not “create,” is this:
1. Creation in Genesis comes about only in one of two ways: Jussive speech (as in,“let there be light”), or with the verb asah. She writes:
Telkens wanneer iets nieuws wordt gemaakt in Genesis 1, staat dat aangegeven op een van de volgende twee manieren. 1.“God zei” gevolgd door een directe rede met een werkwoord in de aanvoegende wijs of iussivus [...] 2. Zeven keren gebruikt de verteller het werkwoord asa “maken” om het scheppen van God van iets nieuws te beschrijven: God maakte het uitspansel….
2. In Genesis 1:1, the verb bara applies to two direct objects, both of which are definite, and therefore known.(“Het werkwoord drukt een type handeling uit die God uitvoert met betrekking tot twee directe lijdende voorwerpen, de hemel en de aarde….”)
3. We learn from verses 6-7 and 9-10 that the creation story is, at least in part, about transformation of the uniform water into four regions: water above the sky, water in the sky, water below the sky, and dry land.(“De handeling zelf transformeert deze uniforme watermassa in ten minste vier ruimtelijke domeinen: water boven het hemelgewelf, water onder het hemelgewelf, terwijl het water onder het hemelgewelf verder wordt verdeeld in droog land en zeeen.”)
4. Other ANE texts refer to creation stories that feature separation at the beginning.
5. In Genesis 1:21 we find the verb bara for the taninim, which are not mentioned in the previous verse or in the following verse, so the verb bara in Genesis 1:21 refers to separating the taninim from the other animals.
6. In verses 26-27 we first find asah used in reference to the plural “us” and “gods,” then, in verse 27, bara only refers to “him”(God). Further, asah in verse 26 matches up with d’mut and tzelem,“image and likeness”(beeld and gelijkenis), while bara in 27 only has tzelem. Van Wolde uses these facts to posit that verse 27 refers to (a) separating man from the plural god-man construct; and (b) then separating man from woman.
7. Van Wolde points to the word toldot in Genesis 2:4, using its etymology to suggest that it complements bara. Genesis 2:4 for her is about “begetting” and “separating.”(“Aldus blijkt dat vers 2,4a het hele verhaal evalueert en afsluit: het maken of tot stand brengen (‘schepping’) wordt weergegeven door het begrip verwekken of voortbrengen (toledot) en het scheiden wordt weergegeven door het woord bara.”)
8. Van Wolde points to other words (asah and kana) that mean “create.”
9. Van Wolde suggests that the present participle of bara is never used to mean “creator.”(“Een vierde toetssteen voor de hypothese is het opvallende feit dat in de Hebreeuwse bijbel het abstracte woord schepper nooit wordt uitgedrukt door het tegenwoordig deelwoord van bara.”)
10. Isaiah 45:7 reads,“[God] yotzers light and borehs darkness, osehs peace and borehs evil.” Van Wolde points out the theological problem with a text that ascribes the creation of darkness and evil to God, and further suggests that, in part because the words come in pairs, the verb here, too, means “separate.”

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#304 Jan 27, 2013
Ilya Yacubovich of the Luvian dissertation:

(the grace of) Tarhunt and the gods'.(Phoen.) w-brbm y”bd l-'ztwd w-l-bt mp&#322; b-”br b”l w-'lm.”And by many they will serve Azatiwada and the house of Mopsos by ...

So brsht br>
would denote what was there allready: many.
Rsht: made chief, put on a straight path
br> (comparing with several meanings from surrouding groups, as well as the Dutch professor and paleo-hebrew research)order/rank thus divide.
So many became one encompassing all on heaven and earth, to be renamed as the simple objects they are, and no longer gods, goddesses, naturespirits.

As if that was not the main point afterall!
Which is simply missed when 'he-god' is used.
First they had to come to one-ness!
Which was not at all that self-evident.

---
I do not see how the gospel or socalled new testament cooked up theology, could be relevant in this discussion.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#305 Jan 27, 2013
pg 69 of the luvian dissertation.

In all older text , as also sumerian we find a sort form used. Example:

quote:
KUB 29.8 iii 7-9, CTH 777.2.A (MS), Haas 1984: 9447
da-a-du-ga-ra-a-i
DINGIR.MEŠ-na-ša-a-
[(e tar-šu-wa-na-ša-a-e)]
tad=ugar(i)=&#257;e en(i)=n(a)=až=(ve)=&#257;e taržuwan(i)=n(a)=až=(ve)=& #257;e
love=Recipr=Instr
god-RltPl=Pl=Gen=Instr
god-RltPl=Pl=Gen=Instr
‘with the mutual love of gods and humans’

Note that only the symbol DINGIR.MES makes the distiction in talking of gods and humans.
Akkadian would make that clear by insering f.i. only two letters -ll- or was that -ss-(?).
Having that discussion in mind of what being in elohyms image might possibly mean.)

Giorgieri (2000: 217) has not found any cases where the sequence -až-&#257;e would be used for marking the plurality of the instrumental noun, and not its possessor. This gap is not accidental given that the marker =&#257;e appears to function as an adverbial suffix(Giorgieri 2000: 218 with ref.). Thus the sequence DINGIR.MEŠ-na-ša-eis an unlikely candidate for conveying the meaning ‘with the gods’ in addition to ‘with (one) of thegods’. This is, of course, a similar distribution to what we encounter in Kizzuwatna Luvian, where massanassa-nz-adi meant ‘by (one) of the gods’(Melchert 2003b: 188), but *massan-adi would mean ‘by/through/with the god(s)’, with no distinction in number.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Judaism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 13 hr namredipsobla 256,357
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 18 hr Dogen 3,439
News Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders? Sat adelson is evil 1
News Holy 'trivialities' Sat becht is a mohel 1
News Missouri's Jewish Governor At Center Of High St... Sat becht is evil 1
News Police Accuse Man Of Spraying His Own House Wit... Apr 13 bldg seven 1
News One God - one family Apr 13 jhnsn d-s 12
More from around the web