New Proposed Etymology: "Israel"

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Sahabi


As the story goes, Jacob beat the devil. Try telling that to a Christian and his head explodes for how can this be right, to them God and Satan are like Itchy and Scratchy or Black and White? Truth is however, that Satan is 'The Right Hand of God', or as St. Stephen says it as his eyes gaze upon the area around the apex of the Northern sky: I see heaven opened, and the Son of Man (Ursa Major) standing by 'God's Right Hand' (Draco). Unlike Draco and Ursa Major, 'the Father' or 'El' is not chained. To see his shape, which is that of 'a king seated on a throne', remove the chains of Draco and de-focus for a while.

Or burst out laughing like I am doing at this whole post.

Yes, Like Kierkegaard said it (my rough translation from Danish): «I expect that when the world ends, it will do so accompanied by laughter from the crowd, for people will think it is but a joke.»

Thanks for the vid. At one time when new at watching or reading about these sort of subjects I sat on the fence and was unable to pick up on what might be true from what could have been true . Allow me to add some up to date facts that contradict one of the statements made in the vid . The fact that there has not been found any evidence for the Exodus from Egypt . Well that has been found such evidence but not by looking where tradition puts it .

"For centuries, Bible scholars and religious pilgrims have been seeking the location of Mt. Sinai. Today, most people are unaware that not one piece of hard evidence has been produced to verify that what is traditionally designated at “Mount Sinai” in the south central Sinai Peninsula is indeed the famed mountain of Moses and the Exodus. In fact, the only verifiable reason that the traditional site is designated “Mount Sinai” at all is because a Roman mystic designated it and Helena, mother of Constantine I, anointed it as the true Mount Sinai early in the 4th century AD. (Helena also claimed she discovered the true “holy sepulcher” in Jerusalem and the true cross of Christ.)" www.baseinstitute.org...

I should say that if you look in the wrong place for evidence you just wont find it . So where should we look ? "In the New Testament, Paul wrote in Galatians 4:25, “Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia . . .”Although some argue that here the Roman designation of Arabia includes the Sinai Peninsula, Arabia in Paul’s day encompassed a larger region that primarily designated the populated regions of ancient Midian, or modern-day Saudi Arabia. As a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” Paul’s understanding of Arabia would have been one that was consistent with Old Testament passages like 1 Kings 10:15, 2 Chronicles 9:14, Isaiah 21:13, Jeremiah 25:24, and Ezekiel 27:21, in which Arabia is clearly identified with the region east of the Gulf of Aqaba, where “kings” ruled and the “Dedanites” co-dwelt with other nomadic peoples.

Even more telling, Exodus 3:1 plainly identifies Mount Horeb (Sinai) as being in Midian: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.” Here, there are two important issues. First, the region of “Midian” referred to here is undeniably the same as present-day Saudi Arabia. Second, at the traditional site of Mt. Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula, there is nothing that would cause it to be geographically identified with the “back” of a desert, in distinction from its surroundings. By contrast, the site proposed by BASE Institute is, indeed, on the far side or margin of a vast desert in ancient Midian.

However, can ancient Midian be identified with the Sinai Peninsula, which in the time of Moses, was considered a part of Egypt (although designated as the “wilderness” of Egypt)? It is apparent from Exodus 2:15 that the two were separate entities. After killing an Egyptian, Moses fled Egypt for safer ground: “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian.” Egypt and its holdings would not have been safe for Moses under any circumstances. He would not have fled to the Sinai Peninsula, where archaeology shows that Pharaoh had multiple mining interests and military outposts. The Bible is clear that Moses went out of Egypt, to the land of Midian east of the gulf of Aqaba."

Above is a little of the evidence that points to a different place then what has come down to us from tradition .I want to make mention of another tradition we have today that Mr. Cornuke has shown to be just that (tradition) and has no basis in facts ,and that has to do with The Temple Mount being the place of The Jewish Temple .Using facts and eye witness testimony from different sources he shows that the Temple was south of the traditional place in the ancient City of David and was probably situated on the Threshing floor that David purchased .

"Historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the entirety of the temple was indeed in total ruin and destruction after 70 AD. He went on to say that if he had not personally been in Jerusalem during the war and witnessed the demolition by Titus of the temple that took place there, he wouldn’t have believed it ever existed. In Josephus (Jewish Wars, VII, 1.1) it speaks of widespread destruction in all Jerusalem as well. Archaeology and eye-witness evidence suggests that Jerusalem was destroyed so severely that not much of it was left. However, the foundation walls of what we call today the traditional Temple Mount would not, in all likelihood, be included in the manifest of any destroyed edifices because it was Roman-owned and would be considered separate from Jerusalem by Josephus.

If found that Jews at the Wailing Wall, when interviewed, said that the huge high walls of stones standing there today gives testimony that Jesus was flat-wrong and that His proclamation that not one Stone of the Temple will remain standing disqualifies Christ as a being completely truthful.

I however feel that those high stone walls there today are remnants from a former Roman fort occupied by the mighty Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis). I also believe that the true site of Solomon’s temple is about a thousand feet South of the temple mount in the City of David. This would mean that Jesus was correct in His prophetic words and that each and every stone, to the very last was one, was cast down.

WHERE WAS THE TEMPLE?

The garrison of Fort Antonia in Jerusalem was as big as several cities according to Josephus housing approximately 6,000 men plus the needed support staff. All told, as many as 10,000 personnel that serves served there. But this huge fort has ever been found in Jerusalem by Archaeologists. I feel that archaeologists have not found the mighty Roman fort is because it is the huge temple mount complex and that tradition has concealed it from historical notice." www.baseinstitute.org...

As to the OP I only offer up a link to a technical audit of the Documentary Hypothesis carm.org... Great thread ..peace a reply to: Kantzveldt

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Trying to remember my dead sea scrolls here, wasnt it Melki-resha or something that meant Prince of Darkness? Could Melki be related etymologically to Malak?

Melki must mean prince as Melki-zadek was Prince of light. Unless I mixed the two up.

a reply to: Ridhya

Melchizedek was the priest of Abraham in power of being a priest of the "Most High El", and he was king of (Jeru-) Salem. The name Melchizedek is made from two words: 1: Malak meaning Messenger, Angel or King depending on the vocalisation and 2: Tzedeq "Justice/planet Jupiter".

I'm not too familiar with the DSS. Why they have gotten so much attention is beyond my comprehension to be honest. I consider much of the unique part of the material as rants from some doomsday sect of Essenes. They were good healers though, and they were always dressed in white. It was probably an Essene healer Rosemary met by the tomb on the first day, telling her that her husband was no longer there. Turning around, Mary then saw someone in the garden and she approached him. Having shaved off his beard and cut his hair short, Rosemary mistook the released patient for the gardener.

a reply to: Logarock


It's just the way they wrote the story up that the introduction of Yahweh as the singular Deity of Israel was an influence from Midian, which is pretty close to the Southern Mesopotamian core region of Ea worship from which that Semitic variant derived, but there was Northern Semitic usage as far as Syria from earlier periods.

Yah at Ebla

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think it would have been the case that Yah or Ea would have been very important for any groups leaving Egypt given his association with water even in the desert and there was also of course the spiritual metaphor of finding oneself in a wasteland as it were.

a reply to: Ridhya

Yes the usage of M'L'K will always indicate a Prince or ruler, insert vowels according to preference.

a reply to: new_here

If this is true, it seems a very strange choice to me. I always thought El was the head honcho, and a lot nicer than Yahweh. But what do I know. What do you make of this choice?

Many agree that El is more of a compassionate deity than Yahweh:

"Yahweh is a man of war: Yahweh is his name."

(Exodus 15:3)

When we consider religious systems that include multiple gods or pantheons, we see that individuals, families, tribes, villages, or entire city-states often chose a single deity to take as their patron god. For example, Zeus was hailed as a major god of Olympia, while Athens took Athena as their patron goddess. Enki of Eridu,... Enlil of Nippur,... Anu and Inanna of Uruk,... etc.

Choosing to worship an angry god associated with war is not unheard of in polytheistic systems, as we have seen the worship of Ares, Mars, Kali, and Guan Yu. Even today, we see soldiers invoking patron saints, angels, spirits, and gods of battle, war, and courage.

To rally the battle-spirit, courage, and hopes of the Hebrew-Israelites in carving out their own kingdom in the Land of Canaan, I think the worship of a war god seems fitting.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Logarock


It's just the way they wrote the story up that the introduction of Yahweh as the singular Deity of Israel was an influence from Midian, which is pretty close to the Southern Mesopotamian core region of Ea worship from which that Semitic variant derived, but there was Northern Semitic usage as far as Syria from earlier periods.

Yah at Ebla

This Midian as influence idea is simply lousy scholarship. I would say even harebrained. Its based on absolutely nothing save for geographic location.....as if by some geographical osmosis. Not even the narrative supports the slightest extrapolation.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Sahabi


Some important information in regards to your point cant be found with Moses at the burning bush.

Are you talking about Shaddai?

According to Genesis 17:1, Genesis 35:11, and Exodus 6:2-3,... we are told that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God as Shaddai, but only Moses knew God as Yahweh.

What does Shaddai mean? Well,... the Hebrew root attributed to "Shaddai" is not definitely agreed upon. It may stem from "shadad," meaning, "to overpower," or "to destroy," which gives our English-Language Bibles the phrase "The Almighty."

"Shaddai" may stem from "shad," having the connotation of "fertility," by the meaning of "breast." This is supported by Genesis 49:25

From El, of your father, who helps you. And from Shaddai who blesses you with blessings of the skies above, blessings of the deep springs below, blessings of the breast (shaddayim) and womb.

(Genesis 49:25)

Alternatively, "Shaddai" may stem from the root "shadu," meaning, "mountain." This root aligns with the "God of the Mountain Motif" found in the surrounding religious systems, such as Baal Hadad of Mount Zephon and Zeus of Mount Olympus. For our discussion, it may be interesting to note the significance of mountains in the Bible, such as Mount Sinai, Mount Ararat, Mount Zion, and Mount Gerizim.

Furthermore, there are indications that Shaddai was one of the lesser Gods or Goddesses of the Levant, which is supported in the Book of Numbers. We are presented with a verse that portrays Elyon, El, and Shaddai as separate deities, the reasoning of which corresponds to the local religions of the Levant.

The prophecy of one who hears the words of El, who has knowledge from the Elyon, who sees a vision from Shaddai, who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened.

Numbers 24:16

In some instances, the word "Shaddai" is compounded with the word "El" as "El-Shaddai." This assimilation of El and Shaddai (El-Shaddai) gives us the meaning of "El of the Mountain," "El the Powerful," or "El the Destroyer."

We must remember that in the Levant and Land of Canaan, "El" is a specific name for a specific god. It is the "white-washing" of history that tells us that "El" is simply a generic word meaning "God" with no deeper origins. This would be similar to stating that "Allah" generically means "Deity," without giving any other religious or historic background of the word.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Sahabi

If this is true, it seems a very strange choice to me. I always thought El was the head honcho, and a lot nicer than Yahweh. But what do I know. What do you make of this choice?

This is just more of the same bad information that floats around.

The El that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew was Yahweh. He simply had not ever given them His more personal name until Moses. Why? Because He was about to get very personal.

Firstly, the majority of the "Titles" of God used in the Old Testament are actually "Names" of separate and specific deities of the Land of Canaan.

Secondly, the Old Testament linguistically and structurally portrays separate deities when read in Hebrew.

Many Biblical verses clearly portray El and Yahweh as two separate personalities. In this post, check out Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Psalm 82:1-8, Psalm 29:1, and Psalm 89:6. In this post, check out Numbers 24:16 and Genesis 49:25.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Thanks for contributing some info

by so strongly identifying with Yah they simply become players within an archetypal mythological struggle against all other Gods and peoples, and thus somewhat unbalanced.

That's right!!! Yahweh starts by forbidding the worship of other gods, then assimilates the qualities, powers, and mythologies of other deities as those of His own.

When viewed in leu of the Hebrew language and with the comparative-religious consideration of the local and neighboring religions, a very messy attempt of conglomerating separate deities into one becomes obvious.

If there were no other Gods, surely Yahweh would have nothing to be jealous of. But over and over we read references to "other god/gods," "their god/gods," etc.

For Yahweh your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 4:24

a reply to: Logarock

Well why did Pharaoh say he had never heard of Yahweh?

Which Pharaoh are we talking about? Because by the 14th Century B.C./BCE, we have documented Egyptian usage of the God "YHW" of the Shasu people.


Soleb Temple Cartouche



Shasu



YHW

originally posted by: vjr1113
so israel is a misnomer, so what? is that all?

To highlight significant instances of polytheism within the Old Testament opens up many doors for consideration and discussion. Polytheism is denied by many Biblical adherents, therefore, such open debate is still relevant to mankind's present understandings.

I have heard this basic theory before, in terms of the Old Testament being the story of two separate groups, those who worshiped YHWH and whose who worshiped Elohim. But, what has never been made clear to me, is what is the significance? What is the difference between the two? And where is the evidence in the bible that these two god-names were seen as fundamentally different? It seems to me like they are just two aribtrary names.

I came across a similar idea in certain presentations of the Kabbalah. God-names were associated with the sephiroth of the tree of life, and it was claimed that those god-names represented those principles. This seemed highly intriguing to me. Seemed that there could be much more depth and subtlety of interpretation in the bible if this were true. I looked into it a bit. And, I could not see any justification for this being biblically true. I couldn't see any indication that those different names actually signified different things, without just assuming the names signified different things regardless of context. And so perhaps I just haven't looked at this angle enough. But, I have read the bible a lot in my life. And I can't say it's not possible I just didn't pick up on this. But it really does seem to me that the god-names are just arbitrarily inter-mixed, without the different names really having much different significations.

So I ask, if one were to read the bible with this idea in mind, would you find that when the term YHWH is used, it clearly has a different meaning than elohim? It doesn't seem to me this is the case. Though I know this theory has support even by some scholars, but to me it is actually irrelevant whether the 'historical' aspect of it is true, that the bible contained the vestiges of elohim-worship in an attempt to overthrow it with YHWH worship; either way, in the bible itself the names are inter-changable. Unless I'm wrong, I just don't really think so, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Now, you may find a few verses in which you can analyze it as saying the two names are separate, as you seem to have done. However, in a general reading of the bible, I'm not sure you could consistently see the two names as signifying anything really different.

yahweh/jehovah is h'ayah, who is ea, who is enki, but only some of the time. what i mean by that is, yahweh/jehovah is also enlil in the bible. en meant lord and lil meant of the air. so en-lil meant lord of the air. he shouldn't be given the title yahweh, as it is actually ea/enki, not enlil. the creator was ea. enlil was like a military commander. if you've ever seen the tv show "stargate sg-1", enlil was like a system lord.

This makes sense to me as the story is a fable about the ruling class of this particular group of Canaanites deciding to concentrate their cultural and religious beliefs around the one deity (Yahweh) to separate themselves from the rest of the Canaanites who remained polytheistic, for whatever reason they did this, who knows - most likely political, militarial, territorial or all of the above.

As I understand it the ancient Israelites/Hewbrews/Jews were absolutely no different to the rest of the inhabitants of Canaan and WERE Canaanites - there simply is no difference. At some point a particular group settlement decided to differentiate themselves from their neighbours by forcing their subjects to adopt worship of a single god - which failed miserably according to the bible stories, but eventually took hold over the centuries.

And this event is what is far later mythologized to create a strong group identity when the stories that would then later make up the old testament were written down - which without checking dates, I assume was during the period of the Babylonian captivity or thereabouts? It's centuries after the supposed events took place, and there is a clear political and social agenda to the stories making them far from reliable history and more about instilling a rigid cultural sense of identity amongst a group of people at constant war with their neighbours.

DP

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Logarock

Well why did Pharaoh say he had never heard of Yahweh?

Which Pharaoh are we talking about? Because by the 14th Century B.C./BCE, we have documented Egyptian usage of the God "YHW" of the Shasu people.

This is well after Moses so there isnt a contradiction of any sort. Not to mention what looks like a poor translation.

The Egyptians had well heard of Yahweh by that time at any rate. Not to mention that many Hebrew were living in Egypt again by that time.

a reply to: Logarock

Aye to that. I'd love to see the notes of that translator and hear the arguments behind the translation. Then again, I can be wrong. Yamm was a Canaanite deity, one of the seven sons of El. Yamm is also the Dragon, the Leviathan and related to the Mesopotamian Tiamat. Seven heads, ten horns, Dragon, god of seas and rivers, and an anthropomorphisation of the River Nile.